iii
;■;;
''
II |i
litiiliilli'
*!ii
ipiiitli!!
Al«
ry^/^v7 TT'
iinnfm^fit'-
LIBRARY OF
WELLESLEY COLLEGE
PRESENTED BY
Anne Eugenia Morgan
Memorial Collection
A SELECT LIBRARY
OF
NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
^cconU ^enes.
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LLD., and HENRY WAGE, D.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, Principal of King's College,
Neiv York. London.
IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PA TRISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE AND AMERICA.
VOLUME I.
EUSEBIUS:
CHURCH HISTORY,
LIFE OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT,
AND
ORATION IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE.
NEW YORK:
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.
1904.
I 7 f^l-i^
Coi'YRIGHT, l8gO, BY
The Christian Literature Company.
PREFACE.
The First Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Library of the Christian Fathers, con-
taining, in fourteen volumes, the principal works of St. Augustin and St. Chrysostom, has
been completed in less than four years, according to the Prospectus of the Publisher issued
in 1886.
I am happy to state that the Second Series, containing the chief works of the Fathers
from Eusebius to John of Damascus, and from Ambrose to Gregory the Great, will be issued
on the same liberal terras, as announced by the Publisher.
The present volume opens the Second Series with a new translation and critical commen-
tary of the historical works of Eusebius, by my friends, Dr. Arthur C. McGiffert and Dr.
Ernest C. Richardson, who have bestowed a vast amount of labor of love on their tasks
for several years past. I desired them to make these works a reliable and tolerably com-
plete Church History of the first three centuries for the English reader. I think they have
succeeded. Every scholar will at once see the great value and superiority of this over every
other previous edition of Eusebius.
PHILIP SCHAFF.
Nkw York, March, iSgo.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.
PAGE
Preface by the General Editor ; iii
EUSEBIUS: Church History from a.d. 1-324: . v. -
Translated with Prolegomena and Notes by Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D.
Preface vii
Prolegomena : The Life and Writings of Eusebius of C^sarea i
The Church History , 73
Supplementary Notes and Tables 388
EUSEBIUS: Constantine: ' "''
Revised Translation with Prolegomena and Notes by Ernest Cushing Richardson, Ph.E>. 405
Preface 40S
Prolegomena : Constantine the Great 411
Life of Constantine 481
Constantine's Oration to the Assembly of the Saints 561
Oration in Praise of Constantine 581
Index of Texts referred to in the Church History 613
To the Church History 615
To THE Life of Constantine, &c 627
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
TRANSLATED WITH PROLEGOMENA AND NOTES
BY
THE REV. ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT, Ph.D.,
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN LANE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, CINCINNATI.
153
PREFACE.
The present translation of the Church History of Eusebius has been made from Heinichen's
second edition of the Greek text, but variant readings have been adopted without hesitation
whenever they have approved themselves to my judgment. In all such cases the variation from
Heinichen's text has been indicated in the notes. A simple revision of Cruse's English version
was originally proposed, but a brief examination of it was sufficient to convince me that a satis-
factory revision would be an almost hopeless task, and that nothing short of a new and indepen-
dent translation ought to be undertaken. In the preparation of that translation invaluable
assistance has been rendered by my father, the Rev. Joseph N. McGiffert, D.D., for whose help
and counsel I desire thus publicly to give expression to my profound gratitude. The entire
translation has been examined by him and owes much to his timely suggestions and criticisms ;
while the translation itself of a considerable portion of the work (Bks. V.-VIII. and the Martyrs
of Palestine) is from his hand. The part thus rendered by him I have carefully revised for the
purpose of securing uniformity in style and expression throughout the entire work, and I there-
fore hold myself alone responsible for it as well as for the earlier and later books. As to the
principle upon which the translation has been made, little need be said. The constant endeavor
has been to reproduce as nearly as possible, both the substance and form of the original, and
in view of the peculiar need of accuracy in such a work as the present, it has seemed better in
doubtful cases to run the risk of erring in the direction of over-literalness rather than in that of
undue license.
A word of explanation in regard to the notes which accompany the text may not be out of
place. In view of the popular character of the series of which the present volume forms a part, it
seemed important that the notes should contain much supplementary information in regard to
persons, places, and events mentioned in the text which might be quite superfluous to the profes-
sional historian as well as to the student enjoying access to libraries rich in historical and biblio-
graphical material, and I have therefore not felt justified in confining myself to such questions as
might interest only the critical scholar. Requested by the general editor to make the work in
some sense a general history of, or historical commentary upon, the first three centuries of the
Christian Church, I have ventured to devote considerable space to a fuller presentation of various
subjects but briefly touched upon or merely referred to by Eusebius. At the same time my chief
endeavor has been, by a careful study of difficult and disputed points, to do all that I could for
their elucidation, and thus to perform as faithfully as possible the paramount duty of a commen-
tator. The number and fulness of the notes needed in such a work must of course be matter of
dispute, but annoyed as I have repeatedly been by the fragmentary character of the annotations
in the existing editions of the work, I have been anxious to avoid that defect, and have there-
fore passed by no passage which seemed to me to need discussion, nor consciously evaded any
difficulty. Working with historical students constantly in mind I have felt it due to them to for-
tify all my statements by references to the authorities upon which they have been based, and to
indicate at the same time with sufficient fullness the sources whose examination a fuller investi-
gation of the subject on their part might render necessary. The modem works which have
been most helpful are mentioned in the notes, but I cannot in justice refrain from making espe-
viii PREFACE.
cial reference at this point to Smith and Wace's Dictionai-y of Christian Biography which has
been constantly at my side, and to the first and second volumes of Schaff's Church History,
whose bibliographies have been especially serviceable. Many of Valesius' notes have been found
very suggestive and must always remain valuable in spite of the great advance made in historical
knowledge since his day. For the commentary of Heinichen less can be said. Richardson's
Bibliographical Sy?iopsis, published as a supplement to the Ante-Nicene Library, did not come
into my hands until the greater part of the work was completed. In the preparation of the notes
upon the latter portion it proved helpful, and its existence has enabled me throughout the work
to omit extended lists of books which it woiild otherwise have been necessary to give.
It was my privilege some three years ago to study portions of the fourth and fifth books of
Eusebius' Church History with Professor Adolf Harnack in his Seviinar at Marburg. Especial
thanks are due for the help and inspiration gained from that eminent scholar, and for the light
thrown by him upon many difficult passages in those portions of the work.
It gives me pleasure also to express my obligation to Dr. Isaac G. Hall, of New York, and to
Dr. E. C. Richardson, of Hartford, for information furnished by them in regard to certain edi-
tions of the History, also to the Rev. Charles R. Gillett, Librarian of Union Theological Seminary,
and to the Rev. J. H. Dulles, Librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary, for their kindness
in granting me the privileges of the libraries under their charge, and for their unfailing cour-
tesy shown me in many ways. To Mr. James McDonald, of Shelbyville, Ky., my thanks are due
for his translation of the Testimonies for and against Eusebius, printed at the close of the Pro-
legomena, and to Mr. F. E. Moore, of New Albany, Ind., for assistance rendered in connection
with the preparation of the indexes.
ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT.
Lane Theological Seminary,
April 15, 1890.
CONTENTS OF THE PROLEGOMENA.
CHAPTER I. —The Life of Eusebius. page
§ I . Sources and Literature 3
§ 2. Eusebius' birth and training. His life in Ccesarea until the outbreak of the persecution 3
§ 3. The persecution of Diocletian 8
§ 4. Eusebius' accession to the bishopric of Ciesarea 10
§ 5. The outbreak of the Arian controversy. The attitude of Eusebius II
§ 6. The Council of Nicjea 19
§ 7. Continuance of the Arian controversy. Eusebius' relations to the two parties 21
§ 8. Eusebius and Marcellus 25
§ 9. The death of Eusebius 25
CHAPTER n.— The Writings of Eusekius.
§ I . Eusebius as a writer 26
§ 2. Catalogue of his works 28
CHAPTER HL — Eusebius' Church History,
§ I . Date of its composition 45
§ 2. The author's design 46
§ 3. Eusebius as a historian. The merits and defects of his History 46
§ 4. Editions and versions 52
§ 5. Literature 55
Testimonies of the Ancients in Favor of Eusekius 57
Testimonies of the Ancients against Eusebius 67
VOL. I.
PROLEGOMENA.
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF
EUSEBIUS OF C^SAREA.
CHAPTER I.
The Life of Eusebius.
§ I. Sources and Literature.
ACACIUS, the pupil and successor of Eusebius in the bishopric of Ccesarea, wrote a life of the latter (Socr.
H. E. II. 4) which is unfortunately lost. He was a man of ability (Sozomen H. E. III. 2, IV. 23) and had
exceptional opportunities for producing a full and accurate account of Eusebius' life; the disappearance of his
work is therefore deeply to be regretted.
Numerous notices of Eusebius are found in the works of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Athanasius, Jerome,
and other writers of his own and subsequent ages, to many of which references will be made in the following
pages. A collection of these notices, made by Valesius, is found in English translation on p. 57 sq. of this
volume. The chief source for a knowledge of Eusebius' life and character is to be found in his own works. These
will be discussed below, on p. 26 sq. Of the numerous modern works which treat at greater or less length of
tlie life of Eusebius I shall mention liere only those which I have found most valuable.
Valesius: De vita scriptisque Luscbil Dialribe (in his edition of Eusebius' Historia Eccles.; English version
in Cruse's translation of the same work).
Cave: Lives of the Fathers, II. 95-144 (ed. IT. Gary, O.xf. 1840).
TiLLEMONT: Hist. Eccles. VII. pp. 39-75 (compare also his account of the Arians in vol. VI.).
Stroth : Leben und Schriften dcs Eusebius (in his German translation of the Hist. Eccles.).
Gloss: Leben und Schriften des Eusebius (in his translation of the same work).
Danz : De Eusebio Cccsariensi, Ilistoriie Eccles. Scriptore, ejusque fide historica recte cEstimanda, Gap. II. :
de rebus ad Eusebii vitain pertinentibus (pp. 33-75).
Stein : Eusebius Bischof von Qesarea. Nach seinein Leben, seinen Schriften, tind seineni doi^matischen Char'
akler dargestellt (Wurzburg, 1859; full and valuable).
Bright, in the introduction to his edition of Burton's text of the Hist. Eccles. (excellent).
LlGHTFOOT (Bishop of Durham) : Eusebius of Gcsarea, in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biog-
raphy, vol. II. pp. 308-348. Lightfoot's article is a magnificent monument <if patristic scholarship and contains
the best and most exhaustive treatment of the life and writings of Eusebius that has been written.
The student may be referred finally to all the larger histories of the Church {e.g. Schaff, vol. III. 871 sqq. and
1034 sq.), which contain more or less extended accounts of Eusebius.
§ 2. Eusebius^ Birth and Training. His Life in C(£sarea U7itil the Outbreak of the
Persecutiofi.
Our author was commonly known among the ancients as Eusebius of Csesarea or Eusebius
Pamphili. The former designation arose from the fact that he was bishop of the church in
Csesarea for many years ; the hitter from the fict that he was the intimate friend and devoted
admirer of Pamphilus, a presbyter of Cassarea and a martyr. Some such specific appellation wag
1; 2
PROLEGOMENA.
necessary to distinguish him from others of the same name. Smith and Wace's Dictionary of
Christian Biography mentions 137 men of the first eight centuries who bore the name Eusebius,
and of these at least forty were contemporaries of our author. The best known among them
were Eusebius of Nicomedia (called by Arius the brother of Eusebius of Ctesarea) , Eusebius of
Emesa, and Eusebius of Samosata.
The exact date of our author's birth is unknown to us, but his Ecclesiastical Histojy contains
notices which enable us to fix it approximately. In H. E. V. 28 he reports that Paul of Samosata
attempted to revive again in his day {Kaff r)/iAas) the heresy of Artemon. But Paul of Samosata was
deposed from the episcopate of Antioch in 272, and was condemned as a heretic at least as early
as 268, so that Eusebius must have been born before the latter date, if his words are to be strictly
interpreted. Again, according to H. E. III. 28, Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria in Eusebius'
time (yKaff rjixa?). But Dionysius was bishop from 247 or 248 to 265, and therefore if Eusebius'
words are to be interpreted strictly here as in the former case, he must have been born before
265. On the other hand, inasmuch as his death occurred about 340, we cannot throw his birth
much earlier than 260. It is true that the references to Paul and to Dionysius do not prove
conclusively that Eusebius was alive in their day, for his words may have been used in a loose
sense. But in H. E. VII. 26, just before proceeding to give an account of Paul of Samosata, he
draws the line between his own and the preceding generation, declaring that he is now about to
relate the events of his own age (rrjv Ka6' i^/xas) . This still further confirms the other indications,
and we shall consequently be safe in concluding that Eusebius was born not for from the year
260 A.D. His birthplace cannot be determined with certainty. The fact that he is called
"Eusebius the Palestinian" by Marcellus (Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), Basil {^Lib. ad. Amphil.
de Spir. Sane to, c. 29), and others, does not prove that he was a Palestinian by birth; for the
epithet may be used to indicate merely his place of residence (he was bishop of Caesarea in
Palestine for many years). Moreover, the argument urged by Stein and Lightfoot in support of
his Palestinian birth, namely, that it was customary to elect to the episcopate of any church
a native of the city in preference to a native of some other place, does not count for much. All
that seems to have been demanded was that a man should have been already a member of the
particular church over which he was to be made bishop, and even this rule was not universal (see
Bingham's Antiquities, II. 10, 2 and 3). The fact that he was bishop of Csesarea therefore would
at most warrant us in concluding only that he had made his residence in Csesarea for some time
previous to his election to that office. Nevertheless, although neither of these arguments proves
his Palestinian birth, it is very probable that he was a native of that country, or at least of that
section. He was acquainted with Syriac as well as with Greek, which circumstance taken in con-
nection with his ignorance of Latin (see below, p. 47) points to the region of Syria as his birth-
place. Moreover, we learn from his own testimony that he was in Csesarea while still a youth
(F/Az Consiantini, I. 19), and in his epistle to the church of Csesarea (see below, p. 16) he says
that he was taught the creed of the Csesarean church in his childhood (or at least at the begin-
ning of his Christian life : Iv rrj Karrjx^crei.) , and that he accepted it at baptism. It would seem
therefore that he must have lived while still a child either in Csesarea itself, or in the neighbor-
hood, where its creed was in use. Although no one therefore (except Theodoras Metochita of
the fourteenth century, in his Cap. Miscell. 17; Migne, Patr. Lat. CXLIV. 949) directly states
that Eusebius was a Palestinian by birth, we have every reason to suppose him such.
His parents are entirely unknown. Nicephorus Callistus i^H. E. VI. 37) reports that his
mother was a sister of Pamphilus. He does not mention his authority for this statement, and
it is extremely unlikely, in the face of the silence of Eusebius himself and of all other writers,
that it is trae. It is far more probable that the relationship was later assumed to account for the
close intimacy of the two men. Arius, in an epistle addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia (con-
tained in Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. I. 5), calls Eusebius of Csesarea the latter's brother. It is
objected to this that Eusebius of Nicomedia refers to Eusebius of Csesarea on one occasion as his
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.
" master " (tov Sco-ttotou fxov, in his epistle to Paulinus contained in Theodorct's I/tsA Eccks.
I. 6), and that on the other hand Eusebius of Cossarea calls Eusebius of Nicomedia, " the great
Eusebius" {^Euscb.lib. adv. J/a/w//. I. 4), both of which expressions seem inconsistent with
brotherhood. Eightfoot justly remarks that neither the argument itself nor the objections carry
much weight. The term dScA^ds may well have been used to indicate merely theological or
ecclesiastical association, while on the other hand, brotherhood would not exclude the form of
expression employed by each in speaking of the other. Of more weight is the fact that neither
Eusebius himself nor any historian of that period refers to such a relationship, and also the
unlikelihood that two members of one family should bear the same name.
From Eusebius' works we gather that he must have received an extensive education both in
secular philosophy and in Biblical and theological science. Although his immense erudition was
doubtless the result of wide and varied reading continued throughout life, it is highly probable
that he acquired the taste for such reading in his youth. Who his early instructors were we do
not know, and therefore cannot estimate the degree of their influence over him. As he was a
man, however, who cherished deep admiration for those whom he regarded as great and good
men, and as he possessed an unusually acquisitive mind and a pliant disposition, we should
naturally suppose that his instructors must have possessed considerable influence over him, and
that his methods of study in later years must have been largely molded by their example and
precept. We see this exemplified in a remarkable degree in the influence exerted over him by
Pamphilus, his dearest friend, and at the same time the preceptor, as it were, of his early man-
hood. Certainly this great bibliopholist must have done much to strengthen Eusebius' natural
taste for omnivorous reading, and the opportunities afforded by his grand library for the cultiva-
tion of such a taste were not lost. To the influence of Pamphilus, the devoted admirer and
enthusiastic champion of Origen, was doubtless due also in large measure the deep respect which
Eusebius showed for that illustrious Father, a respect to which we owe one of the most delightful
sections of his Church History, his long account of Origen in the sixth book, and to which in part
antiquity was indebted for the elaborate Defense of Origen, composed by Pamphilus and him-
self, but unfortunately no longer extant. Eusebius certainly owed much to the companionship of
that eager student and noble Christian hero, and he always recognized with deep gratitude his in-
debtedness to him. (Compare the account of Pamphilus given below in Bk. VII. chap. 32, § 25 sq.)
The names of his earlier instructors, who were eminently successful, at least in fostering his thirst
for knowledge, are quite unknown to us. His abiding admiration for Plato, whom he always
placed at the head of all philosophers (see Stein, p. 6), would lead us to think that he received
at least a part of his secular training from some ardent Platonist, while his intense interest in
apologetics, which lasted throughout his life, and which affected all his works, seems to indicate
the peculiar bent of his early Christian education. Trithemius concluded from a passage in his
History (VII. 32) that Eusebius was a pupil of the learned Dorotheus of Antioch, and Valesius,
Lightfoot and others are apparently inclined to accept his conclusion. But, as Stroth remarks
(^Eiiscbii Kirchengeschichie, p. xix), all that Eusebius says is that he had heard Dorotheus
expound the Scriptures in the church (rovrou /Aer/Dt'ojs ras ypa<^as ItH rr\<i iKKkridia.^ Sirjyovixivov
KaTYjKova-aixcv) , that is, that he had heard him preach. To conclude from this statement that
he was a pupil of Dorotheus is certainly quite unwarranted.
Stroth's suggestion that he probably enjoyed the instruction of Meletius for seven years during
the persecution rests upon no good ground, for the passage which he relies upon to sustain his
opinion {H. E. VII. 32. 28) says only that Eusebius "observed Meletius well " (Karevoryo-a/xev)
during those seven years.
In Csesarea Eusebius was at one time a presbyter of the church, as we may gather from his
words in the epistle to that church already referred to, where, in speaking of the creed, he says,
"As we believed and taught in the presbytery and in the episcopate itself." But the attempt to
fix the date of his ordination to that office is quite vain. It is commonly assumed that he
PROLEGOMENA.
became presbyter while Agapius was bishop of Ctesarea, and this is not unlikely, though we
possess no proof of it (upon Agapius see below, H. E. VII. 32, note 39). In his Vita Coft-
stantini, I. 19, Eusebius reports that he saw Constantine for the first time in Csesarea in the
train of the Emperor Diocletian. In his Chron. Eusebius reports that Diocletian made an
expedition against Egypt, which had risen in rebellion in the year 296 .a..d., and Theophanes, in
his Chro7i., says that Constantine accompanied him. It is probable therefore that it was at this
time that Eusebius first saw Constantine in Csesarea, when he was either on his way to Egypt, or
on his way back (see Tillemont's Hist, dcs Emp., IV. p. 34).
During these years of quiet, before the great persecution of Diocletian, which broke out in
303 A.D., Eusebius' life must have been a very pleasant one. Pamphilus' house seems to have
been a sort of rendezvous for Christian scholars, perhaps a regular divinity school ; for we learn
from Eusebius' Martyrs iti Palestine (Cureton's edition, pp. 13 and 14) that he and a number of
others, including the martyr Apphianus, were living together in one house at the time of the
persecution, and that the latter was instructed in the Scriptures by Pamphilus and acquired from
him virtuous habits and conduct. The great library of Pamphilus would make his house a
natural center for theological study, and the immense amount of work which was done by him,
or under his direction, in the reproduction of copies of the Holy Scriptures, of Origen's works
(see Jerome's de vir, ill. 75 and 81, and contra Riif. I. 9), and in other literary employments of
the same kind, makes it probable that he had gathered about him a large circle of friends and
students who assisted him in his labors and profited by his counsel and instruction. Amidst
these associations Eusebius passed his early manhood, and the intellectual stimulus thus given
him doubtless had much to do with his future career. He was above all a literary man, and
remained such to the end of his life. The pleasant companionships of these days, and the mutual
interest and sympathy which must have bound those fellow-students and fellow-disciples of
Pamphilus very close together, perhaps had much to do with that broad-minded spirit of sym-
pathy and tolerance which so characterized Eusebius in later years. He was always as far as
possible from the character of a recluse. He seems ever to have been bound by very strong ties
to the world itself and to his fellow-men. Had his earlier days been filled with trials and hard-
ships, with the bitterness of disappointed hopes and unfulfilled ambitions, with harsh experiences
of others' selfishness and treachery, who shall say that the whole course of his life might not have
been changed, and his writings have exhibited an entirely different spirit from that which is now
one of their greatest charms? Certainly he had during these early years in Coesarea large
opportunities for cultivating that natural trait of admiration for other men, which was often so
strong as to blind him even to their faults, and that natural kindness which led him to see good
wherever it existed in his Christian brethren. At the same time these associations must have had
considerable influence in fostering the apologetic temper. The pursuits of the little circle were
apparently exclusively Christian, and in that day when Christianity stood always on its defense,
it would naturally become to them a sacred duty to contribute to that defense and to employ
all their energies in the task. It has been remarked that the apologetic temper is very noticeable
in Eusebius' writings. It is more than that j we may say indeed in general terms that everything
he wrote was an apology for the faith. His History was written avowedly with an apologetic
purpose, his Chronicle was composed with the same end in view. Even when pronouncing a
eulogy upon a deceased emperor he seized every possible opportunity to draw from that emperor's
career, and from the circumstances of his reign, arguments for the truth and grandeur of the
Christian religion. His natural temper of mind and his early training may have had much to do
with this habit of thought, but certainly those years with Pamphilus and his friends in Csesarea
must have emphasized and developed it.
Another characteristic which Pamphilus and the circle that surrounded him doubtless did
something to develop in our author was a certain superiority to the trammels of mere traditionalism,
or we might perhaps better say that they in some measure checked the opposite tendency of
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.
slavishness to the traditional which seems to have been natural to him, Pamphilus' deep rever-
ence for Origen proclaims him at once superior to that kind of narrow conservatism which led
many men as learned and doubtless as conscientious as himself to pass severe and unconditional
condemnation upon Origen and all his teaching. The effect of championing his cause must have
fostered in this little circle, which was a very hotbed of Origenism, a contempt for the narrow
and unfair judgments of mere traditionalists, and must have led them to seek in some degree the
truth solely for its own sake, and to become in a measure careless of its relation to the views of
any school or church. It could hardly be otherwise than that the free and fearless spirit of
Origen should leave its impress through his writings upon a circle of followers so devoted to him
as were these Caesarean students. Upon the impressionable Eusebius these influences necessarily
operated. And yet he brought to them no keen speculative powers, no deep originality such as
Origen himself possessed. His was essentially an acquisitive, not a productive mind, and hence
it was out of the question that he should become a second Origen. It was quite certain that
Origen's influence over him would weaken somewhat his confidence in the traditional as such, —
a confidence which is naturally great in such minds as his, — but at the same time would do
little to lessen the real power of the past over him. He continued to get his truth from others,
from the great men of the past with whom he had lived and upon whose thought he had feasted.
All that he believed he had drawn from them ; he produced nothing new for himself, and his
creed was a traditional creed. And yet he had at the same time imbibed from his surroundings
the habit of questioning and even criticising the past, and, in spite of his abiding respect for it,
had learned to feel that the voice of the many is not always the voice of truth, and that the
widely and anciently accepted is sometimes to be corrected by the clearer sight of a single man.
Though he therefore depended for all he beHeved so completely upon the past, his associations
had helped to free him from a slavish adherence to all that a particular school had accepted, and
had made him in some small measure an eclectic in his relations to doctrines and opinions of
earlier generations. A notable instance of this eclecticism on his part is seen in his treatment of
the Apocalypse of John. He felt the force of an almost universal tradition in favor of its apos-
tolic origin, and yet in the face of that he could listen to the doubts of Dionysius, and could be
led by his example, in a case where his own dissatisfaction with the book acted as an incentive,
almost, if not quite, to reject it and to ascribe it to another John. Instances of a similar mode of
conduct on his part are quite numerous. While he is always a staunch apologist for Christianity,
he seldom, if ever, degenerates into a mere partisan of any particular school or sect.
One thing in fact which is particularly noticeable in Eusebius' works is the comparatively
small amount of time and space which he devotes to heretics. With his wide and varied learn-
ing and his extensive acquaintance with the past, he had opportunities for successful heresy
hunting such as few possessed, and yet he never was a heresy hunter in any sense. This is sur-
prising when we remember what a fascination this employment had for so many scholars of his
own age, and when we realize that his historical tastes and talents would seem to mark him out
as just the man for that kind of work. May it not be that the lofty spirit of Origen, animating
that Caesarean school, had something to do with the happy fact that he became an apologist
instead of a mere polemic, that he chose the honorable task of writing a history of the Church
instead of anticipating Epiphanius' Panarium ?
It was not that he was not alive to the evils of heresy. He shared with nearly all good church-
men of his age an intense aversion for those who, as he believed, had corrupted the true Gospel of
Christ. Like them he ascribed heresy to the agency of the evil one, and was no more able than
they to see any good in a man whom he looked upon as a real heretic, or to do justice in any degree
to the error which he taught. His condemnations of heretics in his Church History are most
severe. Language is hardly strong enough to express his aversion for them. And yet, although
he is thus most thoroughly the child of his age, the difference between him and most of his
contemporaries is very apparent. He mentions these heretics only to dismiss them with dis-
8^. PROLEGOMENA.
approval or condemnation. He seldom, if ever, discusses and refutes their views. His interests
lie evidently in other directions ; he is concerned with higher things. A still more strongly
marked difference between himself and many churchmen of his age lies in his large liberality
towards those of his own day who differed with him in minor points of faith, and his comparative
indifference to the divergence of views between the various parties in the Church. In all this we
believe is to be seen not simply the inherent nature of the man, but that nature as trained in the
school of Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen.
§ 3. The Persecution of Diocletian.
In this delightful circle and engaged in such congenial tasks, the time must have passed very
happily for Eusebius, until, in 303, the terrible persecution of Diocletian broke upon the Church
almost like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. The causes of the sudden change of policy on
Diocletian's part, and the terrible havoc wrought in the Church, it is not my intention to discuss
here (see below, Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3 sq.). We are concerned with the persecution only in
so far as it bears upon the present subject. In the first year of the persecution Procopius, the
first martyr of Palestine, was put to death at C?esarea (Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine, Cureton's
ed. p. 4), and from that time on that city, which was an important Christian center, was the
scene of a tempest which raged with greater or less violence, and with occasional cessations, for
seven years. Eusebius himself was an eyewitness of many martyrdoms there, of which he gives
us an account in his Martyrs of Palestine. The little circle which surrounded Pamphilus did not
escape. In the third year of the persecution {Mart, of Pal. p. 12 sq.) a youth named Apphianus,
or Epiphanius (the former is given in the Greek text, the latter in the Syriac), who "resided in
the same house with us, confirming himself in godly doctrine, and being instructed by that per-
fect martyr, Pamphilus " (as Eusebius says), committed an act of fanatical daring which caused
his arrest and martyrdom. It seems that without the knowledge of his friends, concealing his
design even from those who dwelt in the same house with him, he laid hold of the hand of the
governor, Arbanus, who was upon the point of sacrificing, and endeavored to dissuade him from
offering to " lifeless idols and wicked devils." His arrest was of course the natural consequence,
and he had the glory of witnessing a good profession and suffering a triumphant death. Although
Eusebius speaks with such admiration of his conduct, it is quite significant of the attitude of him-
self, and of most of the circle of which he was one, that Apphianus felt obliged to conceal his
purpose from them. He doubtless feared that they would not permit him to perform the rash
act which he meditated, and we may conclude from that, that the circle in the main was gov-
erned by the precepts of good common sense, and avoided that fanaticis-m which so frequently
led men, as in the present case it led Apphianus, to expose themselves needlessly, and even to
court martyrdom. It is plain enough from what we know of Eusebius' general character that he
himself was too sensible to act in that way. It is true that he speaks with admiration of
Apphianus' conduct, and in H. E. VIII. 5, of the equally rash procedure of a Nicomcdian Chris-
tian ; but that does not imply that he considered their course the wisest one, and that he would
not rather recommend the employment of all proper and honorable precautions for the preser\'a-
tion of life. Indeed, in H. E. IV. 15, he speaks with evident approval of the prudent course pur-
sued by Polycarp in preserving his life so long as he could without violating his Christian profes-
sion, and with manifest disapproval of the rash act of the Phrygian Quintus, who j^resumptuously
courted martyrdom, only to fail when the test itself came. Pamphilus also possessed too much
sound Christian sense to advocate any such fanaticism, or to practice it himself, as is plain enough
from the fact that he was not arrested until the fifth year of the persecution. This unhealthy
temper of mind in the midst of persecution was indeed almost universally condemned by the
wisest men of the Church, and yet the boldness and the very rashness of those who thus voluntarily
and needlessly threw their lives away excited widespread admiration and too often a degree
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.
of commendation which served only to promote a wider growth of the same unhealthy senti-
ment.
In the fifth year of the persecution Pamphilus was arrested and thrown into prison, where he
remained for two years, when he finally, in the seventh year of the persecution, suffered martyr-
dom with eleven others, some of whom were his disciples and members of his own houselujld.
(Fa/. Mar/. Cnveton's ed. p. 36 sq. ; H. E. App. chap, ti.) During the two years of Pam-
philus' imprisonment Eusebius spent a great deal of tinie with him, and the two together com-
posed five books of an Apology for Origcn, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth (see below,
p. 36). Danz (p. 37) assumes that Eusebius was imprisoned with Pamphilus, which is not an
unnatural supposition when we consider how much they must have been together to compose the
Apologv as they did. There is, however, no other evidence that he was thus imprisoned, and
in the face of Eusebius' own silence it is safer perhaps to assume (with most historians) that he
simply visited Pamphilus in his prison. How it happened that Pamphilus and so many of his
followers were imprisoned and martyred, while Eusebius escaped, we cannot tell. In his Martyrs
of Palestine, chap. 11, he states that Pamphilus was the only one of the company of twelve martyrs
that was a presbyter of the Ceesarean church ; and from the fact that he nowhere mentions the
martyrdom of others of the presbyters, we may conclude that they all escaped. It is not sur-
prising, therefore, that Eusebius should have done the same. Nevertheless, it is somewhat
difficult to understand how he could come and go so frequently without being arrested and
condemned to a like fate with the others. It is possible that he possessed friends among the
authorities whose influence procured his safety. This supposition finds some support in the fact
that he had made the acquaintance of Constantine (the Greek in Vita Co?isf. I. 19 has eyva)/x.ev,
which implies, as Danz remarks, that he not only saw, but that he became acquainted with Con-
stantine) some years before in Caesarea. He could hardly have made his acquaintance unless
he had some friend among the high officials of the city. Influential family connections may
account in part also for the position of prominence which he later acquired at the imperial court
of Constantine. If he had friends in authority in Ceesarea during the persecution his exemption
from arrest is satisfactorily accounted for. It has been supposed by some that Eusebius denied
the faith during the terrible persecution, or that he committed some other questionable and com-
promising act of concession, and thus escaped martyrdom. In support of this is urged the fact
that in 335, at the council of Tyre, Potamo, bishop of Heraclea, in Egypt, addressed Eusebius in
the following words : " Dost thou sit as judge, O Eusebius ; and is Athanasius, innocent as he
is, judged by thee? Who can bear such things? Pray tell me, wast thou not with me in prison
during the persecution? And I lost an eye in behalf of the truth, but thou appearest to have
received no bodily injury, neither hast thou suffered martyrdom, but thou hast remained alive
with no mutilation. How wast thou released from prison unless thou didst promise those that
put upon us the pressure of persecution to do that which is unlawful, or didst actually do it? "
Eusebius, it seems, did not deny the charge, but simply rose in anger and dismissed the council
with the words, " If ye come hither and make such accusations against us, then do your accusers
speak the truth. For if ye tyrannize here, much more do ye in your own country" (Epiphan.
Hcer. LXVIII. 8) . It must be noticed, however, that Potamo does not directly charge Eusebius
with dishonorable conduct, he simply conjectures that he must have acted dishonorably in order
to escape punishment ; as if every one who was imprisoned with Potamo must have suffered as
he did ! As Stroth suggests, it is quite possible that his peculiarly excitable and violent tempera-
ment was one of the causes of his own loss. He evidently in any case had no knowledge of
unworthy conduct on Eusebius' part, nor had any one else so far as we can judge. For in that
age of bitter controversy, when men's characters were drawn by their opponents in the blackest
lines, Eusebius must have suffered at the hands of the Athanasian party if it had been known
that he had acted a cowardly part in the persecution. Athanasius himself refers to this incident
{Contra Arian. VIII. i), but he only says that Eusebius was '' accused of sacrificing," he does
to PROLEGOMENA.
not venture to affirm that he did sacrifice ; and thus it is evident that he knew nothing of such
an act. Moreover, he never calls Eusebius "the sacrificer," as he does Asterius, and as he
would have been sure to do had he possessed evidence which warranted him in making the
accusation (cf. Lightfoot, p. 311). Still further, Eusebius' subsequent election to the epis-
copate of Csesarea, where his character and his conduct during the persecution must have
been well known, and his appointment in later life to the important see of Antioch, forbid the
supposition that he had ever acted a cowardly part in time of persecution. And finally, it is
psychologically impossible that Eusebius could have written works so full of comfort for, and
sympathy with, the suffering confessors, and could have spoken so openly and in such strong
terms of condemnation of the numerous defections that occurred during the persecution, if he
was conscious of his own guilt. It is quite possible, as remarked above, that influential friends
protected him without any act of compromise on his part; or, supposing him to have been
imprisoned with Potamo, it may be, as Lightfoot suggests, that the close of the persecution
brought him his release as it did so many others. For it would seem natural to refer that
imprisonment to the latter part of the persecution, when in all probability he visited Egypt, which
was the home of Potamo. We must in any case vindicate Eusebius from the unfounded charge
of cowardice and apostasy ; and we ask, with Cave, " If every accusation against any man at any
time were to be believed, who would be guiltless? "
From his History and his Martyrs in Palestine we learn that Eusebius was for much of the
time in the very thick of the fight, and was an eyewitness of numerous martyrdoms not only in
Palestine, but also in Tyre and in Egypt.
The date of his visits to the latter places (^H. E. VIII. 7, 9) cannot be determined with
exactness. They are described in connection with what seem to be the earlier events of the
persecution, and yet it is by no means certain that chronological order has been observed in the
narratives. The mutilation of prisoners — such as Potamo suffered — seems to have become
common only in the year 308 and thereafter (see Mason's Perseeution of Diocletian, p. 281), and
hence if Eusebius was imprisoned with Potamo during his visit to Egypt, as seems most probable,
there would be some reason for assigning that visit to the later years of the persecution. In con-
firmation of this might be urged the improbability that he would leave Csesarea while Pamphilus
was still alive, either before or after the latter's imprisonment, and still further his own state-
ment in //. E. VII. 32, that he had observed Meletius escaping the fury of the persecution for j
seven years in Palestine. It is therefore likely that Eusebius did not make his journey to Egypt,
which must have occupied some time, until toward the very end of the persecution, when it raged
there with exceeding fierceness during the brief outburst of the infamous Maximin.
§ 4. Eusebius'' Accession to the Bishopric of CcBsarea,
Not long after the close of the persecution, Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea in Pales-
tine, his own home, and held the position until his death. The exact date of his accession cannot
be ascertained, indeed we cannot say that it did not take place even before the close of the perse-
cution, but that is hardly probable ; in fact, we know of no historian who places it earlier than
313. His immediate predecessor in the episcopate was Agapius, whom he mentions in terms of
praise in H. E. VII. 32. Some writers have interpolated a bishop Agricolaus between Agapius
and Eusebius (see e.g. Tillemont, Hist. Eccles. VII. 42), on the ground that his name appears in
one of the lists of those present at the Council of Ancyra (c. 314), as bishop of Csesarea in
Palestine (see Labbei et Cossartii Cone. I. 1475). ^^^j ^^ Hefele shows {Conciliengesch. I. 220),
this list is of late date and not to be relied upon. On the other hand, as Lightfoot points out, in
the Libelhis Synodicus {Cone. I. 1480), where Agricolaus is said to have been present at the
Council of Ancyra, he is called bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia ; and this statement is confirmed
by a Syriac list given in Cowper's Miscellanies, p. 41. Though perhaps no great reliance is to be
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. il
placed upon the correctness of any of these lists, the last two may at any rate be set over
against the first, and we may conclude that there exists no ground for assuming that Agapius,
who is the last Caisarean bishop mentioned by Eusebius, was not the latter's immediate prede-
cessor. At what time Agapius died we do not know. That he suffered martyrdom is hardly
likely, in view of Eusebius' silence on the subject. It would seem more likely that he outlived
the persecution. However that may be, Eusebius was already bishop at the time of the dedica-
tion of a new and elegant church at Tyre under the direction of his friend Paulinus, bishop of
that city. Upon this occasion he delivered an address of considerable length, which he has
inserted in his Ecclesiastical History, Bk. X. chap. 4. He does not name himself as its author,
but the way in which he introduces it, and the very fact that he records the whole speech without
giving the name of the man who delivered it, make its origin perfectly plain. Moreover, the last
sentence of the preceding chapter makes it evident that the speaker was a bishop : " Every one
of the rulers (a.p\ovT^av) present delivered panegyric discourses." The date of the dedication of
this church is % \natter of dispute, though it is commonly put in the year 315. It is plain from
Eusebius' speech that it was uttered before Licinius had begun to persecute the Christians, and
also, as Gorres remarks, at a time when Constantine and Licinius were at least outwardly at peace
with each other. In the year 314 the two emperors went to war, and consequently, if the perse-
cution of Licinius began soon after that event, as it is commonly supposed to have done, the
address must have been delivered before hostilities opened ; that is, at least as early as 314,
and this is the year in which Gorres places it {Kritische Untersuchinigen ueber die iicinianische
Christcnvcrfolgung, p. 8). But if Gorres' date (319 a.d.) for the commencement of the perse-
cution be accepted (and though he can hardly be said to have proved it, he has urged some
strong grounds in support of it), then the address may have been delivered at almost any time
between 315 and 319, for, as Gorres himself shows, Licinius and Constantine were outwardly at
peace during the greater part of that time {ib. p. 14 sq.). There is nothing in the speech itself
which prevents this later date, nor is it intrinsically improbable that the great basilica reached
completion only in 315 or later. In fact, it must be admitted that Eusebius may have become
bishop at any time between about 311 and 318.
The persecution of Licinius, which continued until his defeat by Constantine, in 323, was but
local, and seems never to have been very severe. Indeed, it did not bear the character of a
bloody persecution, though a few bishops appear to have met their death on one ground or
another. Palestine and Egypt seem not to have suffered to any great extent (see Gorres, ib. p. 32 sq.) .
§5. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of Eusebius.
About the year 318, while Alexander was bishop of Alexandria, the Arian controversy broke
out in that city, and the whole Eastern Church was soon involved in the strife. We cannot enter
here into a discussion of Arius' views ; but in order to understand the rapidity with which the
Arian party grew, and the strong hold which it possessed from the very start in Syria and Asia
Minor, we must remember that Arius was not himself the author of that system which we know as
Arianism, but that he learned the essentials of it from his instructor Lucian. The latter was one
of the most learned men of his age in the Oriental Church, and founded an exegetico-theological
school in Antioch, which for a number of years stood outside of the communion of the orthodox
Church in that city, but shortly before the martyrdom of Lucian himself (which took place in 3 1 1
or 312) made its peace with the Church, and was recognized by it. He was held in the highest
reverence by his disciples, and exerted a great influence over them even after his death. Among
them were such men as Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Asterius, and others who were afterward
known as staunch Arianists. According to Harnack the chief points in the system of Lucian and
his disciples were the creation of the Son, the denial of his co-eternity with the Father, and his
immutability acquired by persistent progress and steadfastness. His doctrine, which differed
12 PROLEGOMENA.
from that of Paul of Samosata chiefly in the fact that it was not a man but a created heavenly
being who became " Lord," was evidently the result of a combination of the teaching of Paul
and of Origen. It will be seen that we have here, at least in germ, all the essential elements of
Arianism proper : the creation of the Son out of nothing, and consequently the conclusion that
there was a time when he was not ; the distinction of his essence from that of the Father, but at
the same time the emphasis upon the fact that he " was not created as the other creatures," and
is therefore to be sharply distinguished from them. There was litde for Arius to do but to
combine the elements given by Lucian in a more complete and well-ordered system, and then to
bring that system forward clearly and publicly, and endeavor to make it the faith of the Church
at large. His christology was essentially opposed to the Alexandrian, and it was natural that he
should soon come into conflict with that church, of which he was a presbyter (upon Lucian's
teaching and its relation to Arianism, see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, IL p. 183 sq.).
Socrates {^H. E. L 5 sq.), Sozomen {H. E. L 15) and Theodoret (//. E. L 2 sq.), all of whom
give accounts of the rise of Arianism, differ as to the immediate occasion of the controversy, but
agree that Arius was excommunicated by a council convened at Alexandria, and that both he and
the bishop Alexander sent letters to other churches, the latter defending his own course, the former
complaining of his harsh treatment, and endeavoring to secure adherents to his doctrine.
Eusebius of Nicomedia at once became his firm supporter, and was one of the leading figures on
the Arian side throughout the entire controversy. His influential position as bishop of Nicomedia,
the imperial residence, and later of Constantinople, was of great advantage to the Arian cause,
especially toward the close of Constantine's reign. From a letter addressed by this Eusebius to
Paulinus of Tyre (Theodoret, H. E. L 6) we learn that Eusebius of Csesarea was quite zealous in
behalf of the Arian cause. The exact date of the letter we do not know, but it must have been
^\Titten at an early stage of the controversy. Arius himself, in an epistle addressed to Eusebius of
Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. E.l. ^), claims Eusebius of Csesarea among others as accepting at least
one of his fundamental doctrines ("And since Eusebius, your brother in Csesarea, and Theodotus,
and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and ^tius, and all the bishops of the East say that
God existed before the Son, they have been condemned," etc.). More than this, Sozomen
(//. E. L 15) informs us that Eusebius of Cffisarea and two other bishops, having been appealed
to by Arius for " permission for himself and his adherents, as he had already attained the rank of
presbyter, to form the people who were with them into a church," concurred with others "who
were assembled in Palestine," in granting the petition of Arius, and permitting him to assemble
the people as before ; but they " enjoined submission to Alexander, and commanded Arius to
strive incessantly to be restored to peace and communion with him." The addition of the last
sentence is noticeable, as showing that they did not care to support a presbyter in open and per-
sistent rebellion against his bishop. A fragment of a letter written by our Eusebius to Alexander
is still extant, and is preserved in the proceedings of the Second Council of Nica^a, Act. VI.
Tom. V. {Lal>l>ei et Cossartii Cone. VII. col. 497). In this epistle Eusebius strongly remon-
strates with Alexander for having misrepresented the views of Arius. Still further, in his epistle
to Alexander of Constantinople, Alexander of Alexandria (Theodoret, H. E. I. 4) complains of
three Syrian bishops " who side with them [i.e. the Arians] and excite them to plunge deeper
and deeper into iniquity." The reference here is commonly supposed to be to Eusebius of
Csesarea, and his two friends Paulinus of Tyre and Theodotus of Laodicea, who are known to
have shown favor to Arius. It is probable, though not certain, that our Eusebius is one of the
persons meant. Finally, many of the Fathers (above all Jerome and Photius), and in addition
to them the Second Council of Nicasa, directly accuse Eusebius of holding the Arian heresy, as
may be seen by examining the testimonies quoted below on p. 67 sq. In agreement with these
early Fathers, many modern historians have attacked Eusebius with great severity, and have
endeavored to show that the opinion that he was an Arian is supported by his own writings.
Among those who have judged him most harshly are Baronius {ad ann. 340, c. 38 sq.), Petavius
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 13
{Dogm. Theol. de Trin. I. c. 11 sq.), Scaliger {In Elcncho Trilueresii, c. 27, and De emcndatione
friiipori/m, Bk. VI. c. i), Moshcim {Ecclesiastical History, Murdock's translation, I. p. 287 sq.),
Montfaucon {PncUm.in Comment, ad Psalm, c. VI.), and Tillemont {H. E. VII. p. 67 sq.
2d ed.).
On the other hand, as may be seen from the testimonies in Eusebius' favor, quoted below 011
p. 5 7 sq., many of the Fathers, who were themselves orthodox, looked upon Eusebius as likewise
sound on the subject of the Trinity. He has been defended in modern times against the charge
of Arianism by a great many prominent scholars ; among others by Valesius in his Life of Euse-
bius, by Bull {Def. Fid. Nic. II. 9. 20, III. 9. 3, 11), Cave {Lives of the Fathers, II. p. 135 sq.),
Fabricius {Bibl. Grccc. VI. p. 32 sq.), Dupin {Bibl. Eccles. II. p. 7 sq.), and most fully and
carefully by Lee in his prolegomena to his edition of Eusebius' TJieophania, p. xxiv. sq. Light-
foot also defends him against the charge of heresy, as do a great many other writers whom it is
not necessary to mention here. Confronted with such diversity of opinion, both ancient and
modern, what are we to conclude ? It is useless to endeavor, as Lee does, to clear Eusebius of
all sympathy with and leaning toward Arianism. It is impossible to explain such widespread and
continued condemnation of him by acknowledging only that there are many expressions in his
works which are in themselves perfectly orthodox but capable of being wrested in such a way as
to produce a suspicion of possible Arianistic tendencies, for there are such expressions in the
works of multitudes of ancient writers whose orthodoxy has never been questioned. Nor can the
widespread belief that he was an Arian be explained by admitting that he was for a time the per-
sonal friend of Arius, but denying that he accepted, or in any way sympathized with his views (cf.
Newman's Arians, p. 262). There are in fact certain fragments of epistles extant, which are, to
say the least, decidedly Arianistic in their modes of expression, and these must be reckoned with
in forming an opinion of Eusebius' views ; for there is no reason to deny, as Lee does, that they
are from Eusebius' own hand. On the other hand, %3 maintain, with some of the Fathers and
many of the moderns, that Eusebius was and continued through life a genuine Arian, will not do
in the face of the facts that contemporary and later Fathers were divided as to his orthodoxy,
that he was honored highly by the Church of subsequent centuries, except at certain periods, and
v/as even canonized (see Lightfoot's article, p. 348), that he solemnly signed the Nicene Creed,
which contained an express condemnation of the distinctive doctrines of Arius, and finally that at
least in his later works he is thoroughly orthodox in his expressions, and is explicit in his rejection
of the two main theses of the Arians, — that there 7vas a time ivhcn the Son of God was not, and
that he was produced out of nothing. It is impossible to enter here into a detailed discussion of
such passages in Eusebius' works as bear upon the subject under dispute. Lee has considered
many of them at great length, and the reader may be referred to him for further information.
A careful examination of them will, I believe, serve to convince the candid student that there
is a distinction to be drawn between those works written before the rise of Arius, those written
between that time and the Council of Nic^ea, and those written after the latter. It has been very
common to draw a distinction between those works written before and those written after the
Council, but no one, so far as I know, has distinguished those productions of Eusebius' pen which
appeared between 318 and 325, and which were caused by the controversy itself, from all his
other writings. And yet such a distinction seems to furnish the key to the problem. Eusebius'
opponents have drawn their strongest arguments from the epistles which Eusebius wrote to
Alexander and to Euphration; his defenders have drawn their arguments chiefly from the
works which he produced subsequent to the year 325 ; while the exact bearing of the expressions
used in his works produced before the controversy broke out has always been a matter of sharp
dispute. Lee has abundantly shown his Contra Marcel, his De Eccl. Theol., his TJieophania
(which was written after the Council of Nicgea, and not, as Lee supposes, before it), and other
later works, to be thoroughly orthodox and to contain nothing which a trinitarian might not have
written. In his Hist. Eccl., Praparatio Evang., Demonstratio Evang., and other earlier works,
H
PROLEGOMENA.
although we find some expressions employed which it would not have been possible for an
orthodox trinitarian to use after the Council of Nicsea, at least without careful limitation to guard
against misapprehension, there is nothing even in these works which requires us to beUeve that
he accepted the doctrines of Arius' predecessor, Lucian of Antioch ; that is, there is nothing dis-
tinctly and positively Arianistic about them, although there are occasional expressions which might
lead the reader to expect that the writer would become an Arian if he ever learned of Arius'
doctrines. But if there is seen to be a lack of emphasis upon the divinity of the Son, or rather a
lack of clearness in the conception of the nature of that divinity, it must be remembered that
there was at this time no especial reason for emphasizing and defining it, but there was on the
contrary very good reason for laying particular stress upon the subordination of the Son over
against Sabellianism, which was so widely prevalent during the third century, and which was exert-
ing an influence even over many orthodox theologians who did not consciously accept Sabellian-
istic tenets. That Eusebius was a decided subordinationist must be plain to every one that reads
his works with care, especially his earlier ones. It would be surprising if he had not been, for he
was born at a time when Sabellianism (monarchianism) was felt to be the greatest danger to
which orthodox christology was exposed, and he was trained under the influence of the followers
of Origen, who had made it one of his chief aims to emphasize the subordination of the Son over
against that very monarchianism.^ The same subordinationism may be clearly seen in the writings
of Dionysius of Alexandria and of Gregory Thaumaturgus, two of Origen's greatest disciples. It
must not be forgotten that at the beginning of the fourth century the problem of how to preserve
the Godhood of Christ and at the same time his subordination to the Father (in opposition to the
monarchianists) had not been solved. Eusebius in his earlier writings shows that he holds both
(he cannot be convicted of denying Christ's divinity), but that he is as far from a solution of the
problem, and is just as uncertain in regard to the exact relation of Father and Son, as Tertullian,
Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, and Gregory Thaumaturgus were ; is just as inconsistent in his
modes of expression as they, and yet no more so (see Harnack's Dogmejigeschichie, I. pp. 628 sq.
and 634 sq., for an exposition of the opinions of these other Fathers on the subject). Eusebius,
with the same immature and undeveloped views which were held all through the third century,
wrote those earlier works which have given rise to so much dispute between those who accuse
him of Arianism and those who defend him against the charge. When he wrote them he was
neither Arian nor Athanasian, and for that reason passages may be found in them which if
written after the Council of Nicaea might prove him an Arian, and other passages which might as
truly prove him an Athanasian, just as in the writings of Origen were found by both parties
passages to support their views, and in Gregory Thaumaturgus passages apparently teaching
Arianism, and others teaching its opposite, Sabelhanism (see Harnack, ib. p. 646).
Let us suppose now that Eusebius, holding fast to the divinity of Christ, and yet convinced
just as firmly of his subordination to the Father, becomes acquainted through Arius, or other like-
minded disciples of Lucian of Antioch, with a doctrine which seems to preserve the Godhood,
while at the same time emphasizing strongly the subordination of the Son, and which formulates
the relation of Father and Son in a clear and rational manner. That he' should accept such a
doctrine eagerly is just what we should expect, and just what we find him doing. In his epistles
to Alexander and Euphration, he shows himself an Arian, and Arius and his followers were quite
' It is interesting to notice that the creed of the Caesarean
church which Eusebius presented at the Council of Nice contains a
clause which certainly looks as if it had been composed in opposition
to the familiar formula of the SabcUians: "The same one is the
Father, the same one the Son, the same one the Holy Spirit "(toc
avTov ctcai iraTtpa, toi/ aurbi' cZi'ai vibv, TOf avrov eXvai ayiov
irvtviia; see Epiphan. f/^r. LXII. i; and compare the statement
made in the same section, that the Sabellians taught that God acts
in three forms: in the form of the F'ather, as creator and law-
giver; in the form of the Son, as redeemer; and in the form of
the Spirit, as life-giver, etc.)- The clause of the Caesarean creed
referred to runs as follows: "That the Father is truly Father,
the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit" (Traxepa
a\rj9ui^ warepa, Kai vihv aAij^a>? vtbi', Koi nvevfia aytov dATjOw? ayiop).
It is significant that in the revised creed adopted by the Council
these words are omitted, evidently because the occasion for them
no longer existed, since not Sabellianism but Arianism was the her-
esy combated; and because, more than that, the use of them would
but weaken the emphasis which the Council wished to put upon the
essential divinity of all three persons.
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 15
right in claiming him as a supporter. There is that in the epistles which is to be found nowhere
in his previous writings, and which distinctly separates him from the orthodox party. How then
are we to explain the fact that a few years later he signed the Nicene creed and anathematized
the doctrines of Arius ? Before we can understand his conduct, it is necessary to examine care-
fully the two epistles in question. Such an examination will show us that what Eusebius is
defending in them is not genuine Arianism. He evidently thinks that it is, evidently supposes
that he and Arius are in complete agreement upon the subjects under discussion ; but he is mis-
taken. The extant fragments of the two epistles are given below on p. 70. It will be seen that
Eusebius in them defends the Arian doctrine that there was a time when the Son of God was not.
It will be seen also that he finds fault with Alexander for representing the Arians as teaching that
the " Son of God was made out of nothing, like all creatures," and contends that Arius teaches
that the Son of God was begot/en, and that he was not produced like all creatures. We know
that the Arians very commonly applied the word " begotten " to Christ, using it in such cases as
synonymous with " created," and thus not implying, as the Athanasians did when they used the
word, that he was of one substance with the Father (compare, for instance, the explanation of the
meaning of the term given by Eusebius of Nicomedia in his epistle to Paulinus ; Theod. H. E.
I. 6). It is evident that the use of this word had deceived our Eusebius, and that he was led by
it to think that they taught that the Son was of the Father in a peculiar sense, and did in reality
partake in some way of essential Godhood. And indeed it is not at all surprising that the words
of Arius, in his epistle to Alexander of Alexandria (see Athan. Ep. de cone. Arim. et Seleiic,
chap. II. § 3 ; Oxford edition of Athanasius' Tracts against Arianisfu, p. 97), quoted by
Eusebius in his epistle to the same Alexander, should give Eusebius that impression. The words
are as follows : " The God of the law, and of the prophets, and of the New Testament before
eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son, through whom also He made the ages and the universe.
And He begat him not in appearance, but in truth, and subjected him to his own will, unchange-
able and immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures." Arius' use here
of the word '' begat," and his quahfication of the word "creature" by the adjective "perfect," and
by the statement that he was " not as one of the creatures " naturally tended to make Eusebius
think that Arius acknowledged a real divinity of the Son, and that appeared to him to be all that
was necessary. Meanwhile Alexander in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople (Theod.
H. E. I. 4) had, as Eusebius says, misstated Arius' opinion, or at least had attributed to him the
belief that Christ was "made like all other men that have ever been born," whereas Arius
expressly disclaims such- a belief. Alexander undoubtedly thought that that was the legitimate
result to which the other views of Arius must lead ; but Eusebius did not think so, and felt him-
self called upon to remonstrate with Alexander for what seemed to him the latter's unfairness in
the matter.
When we examine the Csesarean creed ' which Eusebius presented to the Council as a fair
statement of his beHef, we find nothing in it inconsistent with the acceptance of the kind of
Arianism which he defends in his epistle to Alexander, and which he evidently supposed to be
practically the Arianism of Arius himself. In his epistle to Euphration, however, Eusebius seems
at first glance to go further and to give up the real divinity of the Son. His words are, " Since
the Son is himself God, but not true God." But we have no right to interpret these words, torn
as they are from the context which might make their meaning perfectly plain, without due regard
to Eusebius' belief expressed elsewhere in this epistle, and in his epistle to Alexander which was
evidently written about the same time. In the epistle to Alexander he clearly reveals a belief in
the real divinity of the Son, while in the other fragment of his epistle to Euphration he dwells
upon the subordination of the Son and approves the Arian opinion, which he had defended also
in the other epistle, that the " Father was before the Son." The expression, " not true God " (a
very common Arian expression; see Athan. Orat. c. Arian. I. 6) seems therefore to have been
^ For a translation of the creed see below, p. i6, where it is given as a part of Eusebius' epistle to the Church of Csesarea.
i6 PROLEGOMENA.
used by Eusebius to express a belief, not that the Son did not possess real divinity (as the genuine
Arians used it), but that he was not equal to the Father, who, to Eusebius' thought, was "true
God." He indeed expressly calls the Son ^eos, which shows — when the sense in which he else-
where uses the word is considered — that he certainly did believe him to partake of Godhood,,
though, in some mysterious way, in a smaller degree, or in a less complete manner than the Father.
That Eusebius misunderstood Arius, and did not perceive that he actually denied all real deity
to the Son, was due doubtless in part to his lack of theological insight (Eusebius was never a great
theologian), in part to his habitual dread of Sabellianism (of which Arius had accused Alexander,
and toward which Eusebius evidently thought that the latter was tending), which led him to look
with great favor upon the pronounced subordinationism of Arius, and thus to overlook the dan-
gerous extreme to which Arius carried that subordinationism.
We are now, the writer hopes, prepared to admit that Eusebius, after the breaking out of the
Arian controversy, became an Arian, as he understood Arianism, and supported that party with
considerable vigor ; and that not as a result of mere personal friendship, but of theological con-
viction. At the same time, he was then, as always, a peace-loving man, and while lending Arius
his approval and support, he united with other Palestinian bishops in enjoining upon him submis-
sion to his bishop (Sozomen, H. E. I. 15). As an Arian, then, and yet possessed with the desire
of securing, if it were possible, peace and harmony between the two factions, Eusebius appeared at
the Council of Nicaea, and there signed a creed containing Athanasian doctrine and anathematizing
the chief tenets of Arius. How are we to explain his conduct ? We shall, perhaps, do best to let
him explain his own conduct. In his letter to the church of Caesarea (preserved by Socrates,
H. E. I. 8, as well as by other authors), he writes as follows : —
" What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great Council assembled at
Nicaea you have probably learned, Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to precede the
accurate account of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have
been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith pre-
sented by ourselves ; and next, the second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions to
our words. Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious Emperor,
and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus : —
" ' As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received
the Holy Laver, and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presby-
tery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this : —
" ' We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One
Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-
born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who
for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to
the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost;
believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost
truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all nations, bap-
tizing them in the A^ame of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently
affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death,
anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we
recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness,
being al)le Ijy proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and
preaching.'
" On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared ; but our
most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements.
He confessed, moreover, that such were his own sentiments ; and he advised all present to agree
to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word,
'One in substance' (o/ioou'crtos), which, moreover, he interpreted as not in the sense of the affec-
tions of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father, in the way of division, or any sever-
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 17
ance ; for that the immaterial and intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of
any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable
manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor ;
but they, with a view to the addition of ' One in substance/ drew up the following formula : —
" ' We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible : — And in One
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of the
Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, One in substance with the
Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and for our
salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into
heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead.
"'And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, "Once He was not," and "Before His generation He was
not," and " He came to be from nothing," or those who pretend that the Son of God is " Of other subsistence or
substance," or " created," or " alterable," or " mutable," the Catholic Church anathematizes,'
" On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they
introduced ' of the substance of the Father,' and ' one in substance with the Father,' Accord-
ingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words wnderwent the scrutiny
of reason. And they professed that the phrase ' of the substance ' was indicative of the Son's
being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him, And with this understand-
ing we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the
Son was from the Father, not, however, a part of His substance. On this account we assented to
the sense ourselves, without declining even the term ' One in substance,' peace being the object
which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view. In the same way we also
admitted ' begotten, not made ' ; since the Council alleged that ' made ' was an appellative com-
mon to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness.
Wherefore, said they. He was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be,
but was of a substance which is too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine oracles
teach to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation being inscrutable and
incalculable to every generated nature. And so, too, on examination there are grounds for say-
ing that the Son is ' one in substance ' with the Father ; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal
beings, for He is not such by division of substance, or by severance ; no, nor by any affection, or
alteration, or changing of the Father's substance and power (since from all such the ingenerate
nature of the Father is alien), but because 'one in substance with the Father' suggests that the
Son of God bears no resemblance to the generated creatures, but that to His Father alone who
begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and sub-
stance, but from the Father.
" To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent ; since we were aware that,
even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term
' one in substance ' in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son. So much, then,
be said concerning the faith which was published ; to which all of us assented, not without in-
quiry, but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor him-
self, and justified by the fore- mentioned considerations. And as to the anathematism published
by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words not in Scrip-
ture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since, then,
no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, ' out of nothing ' and ' once He was not,' and
the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them ; to which also we
assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.
Moreover, to anathematize ' Before His generation He was not ' did not seem preposterous, in
that it is confessed by all that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh.
Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even
accc'rding to His divine generation which is before all ages, since even before he was generated
VOL. I. g
l8 PROLEGOMENA.
in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King
ahvays and Saviour ahvays, having all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and
in the same way. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making clear to you
the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute,
as long as we were offended at statements which differed from our own, but received without
contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of the sense of the
words, they appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which
we have already published." ^
It will be seen that while the expressions " of the substance of the Father," " begotten, not
made," and " One in substance," or " consubstantial with the Father," are all explicitly anti-Arian-
istic, yet none of them contradicts the doctrines held by Eusebius before the Council, so far as we
can learn them from his epistles to Alexander and Euphration and from the Cesarean creed. His
own explanation of those expressions, which it is to be observed was the explanation given by the
Council itself, and which therefore he was fully warranted in accepting, — even though it may not
have been so rigid as to satisfy an Athanasius, — shows us how this is. He had beheved before
that the Son partook of the Godhood in very truth, that He was " begotten," and therefore " not
made," if " made " implied something different from " begotten," as the Nicene Fathers held
that it did ; and he had believed before that the " Son of God has no resemblance to created
things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him, and that He is of no other
substance or essence than the Father," and therefore if that was what the word " Consubstantial "
(o/Aoovo-tos) meant he could not do otherwise than accept that too.
It is clear that the dread of Sabellianism was still before the eyes of Eusebius, and was the
cause of his hesitation in assenting to the various changes, especially to the use of the word
o/xoovVtos, which had been a Sabellian word and had been rejected on that account by the Synod
of Antioch, at which Paul of Samosata had been condemned some sixty years before.
It still remains to explain Eusebius' sanction of the anathemas attached to the creed which
expressly condemn at least one of the beliefs which he had himself formerly held, viz. : that the
" Father was before the Son," or as he puts it elsewhere, that " He who is begat him who was
not." The knot might of course be simply cut by supposing an act of hypocrisy on his part, but
the writer is convinced that such a conclusion does violence to all that we know of Eusebius and
of his subsequent treatment of the questions involved in this discussion. It is quite possible to
suppose that a real change of opinion on his part took place during the sessions of the Council.
Indeed when we realize how imperfect and incorrect a conception of Arianism he had before
the Council began, and how clearly its true bearing was there brought out by its enemies, we
can see that he could not do otherwise than change ; that he must have become either an out-
and-out Arian, or an opponent of Arianism as he did. When he learned, and learned for the first
time, that Arianism meant the denial of all essential divinity to Christ, and when he saw that it
involved the ascription of mutability and of other finite attributes to him, he must either change
entirely his views on those points or he must leave the Arian party. To him who with all his
subordinationism had laid in all his writings so much stress on the divinity of the Word (even
though he had not realized exactly what that divinity involved) it would have been a revolution
in his Christian life and faith to have admitted what he now learned that Arianism involved.
Sabellianism had been his dread, but now this new fear, which had aroused so large a portion of
the Church, seized him too, and he felt that stand must be made against this too great separation
of Father and Son, which was leading to dangerous results. Under the pressure of this fear it is
not surprising that he should become convinced that the Arian formula — "there was a time when
the Son was not" — involved serious consequences, and that Alexander and his followers should
have succeeded in pointing out to him its untruth, because it led necessarily to a false conclusion.
It is not surprising, moreover, that they should have succeeded in explaining to him at least
> The translation is that of Newman, as given in the Oxford edition of Athanasius' Select Treatises against Arianism, p. 59 sq.
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 19
partially their belief, which, as his epistle to Alexander shows, had before been absolutely incom-
prehensible, that the Son was generated from all eternity, and that therefore the Father did not
exist before him in a temporal sense.
He says toward the close of his epistle to the Ccesarean church that he had not been accus-
tomed to use such expressions as "There was a time when he was not," " He came to be from
nothing," etc. And there is no reason to doubt that he speaks the truth. Even in his epistles
to Alexander and Euphration he does not use those phrases (though he does defend the doctrine
taught by the first of them), nor does Arius himself, in the epistle to Alexander upon which
Eusebius apparently based his knowledge of the system, use those expressions, although he too
teaches the same doctrine. The fact is that in that epistle Arius studiously avoids such favorite
Arian phrases as might emphasize the differences between himself and Alexander, and Eusebius
seems to have avoided them for the same reason. We conclude then that Eusebius was not an
Arian (nor an adherent of Lucian) before 318, that soon after that date he became an Arian
in the sense in which he understood Arianism, but that during the Council of Niccea he ceased to
be one in any sense. His writings in later years confirm the course of doctrinal development
which we have supposed went on in his mind. He never again defends Arian doctrines in his
works, and yet he never becomes an Athanasian in his emphasis upon the ofioovaiov. In fact he
represents a mild orthodoxy, which is always orthodox — when measured by the Nicene creed
as interpreted by the Nicene Council — and yet is always mild. Moreover, he never acquired
an affection for the word 6/xooi)crtos, which to his mind was bound up with too many evil associations
ever to have a pleasant sound to him. He therefore studiously avoided it in his o^vn writings,
although clearly showing that he believed fully in what the Nicene Council had explained it to
mean. It must be remembered that during many years of his later life he was engaged in con-
troversy with Marcellus, a thorough-going Sabellian, who had been at the time of the Council one
of the strongest of Athanasius' colleagues. In his contest with him it was again anti-Sabellianistic
polemics which absorbed him and increased his distaste for ofxoova-iov and minimized his emphasis
upon the distinctively anti-Arianistic doctrines formulated at Nicgea. For any except the very
wisest minds it was a matter of enormous difiiculty to steer between the two extremes in those
times of strife ; and while combating Sabellianism not to fall into Arianism, and while combating
the latter not to be engulfed in the former. That Eusebius under the constant pressure of the
one fell into the other at one time, and was in occasional danger of falling into it again in later
years, can hardly be cited as an evidence either of wrong heart or of weak head. An Athanasius
he was not, but neither was he an unsteady weather-cock, or an hypocritical time-server.
§ 6. The Council of Nicaa.
At the Council of Nicsea, which met pursuant to an imperial summons in the year 325 a.d.,
Eusebius played a very prominent part. A description of the opening scenes of the Council is
given in his Vita Constantini, III. 10 sq. After the Emperor had entered in pomp and had taken
his seat, a bishop who sat next to him upon his right arose and delivered in his honor the open-
ing oration, to which the Emperor replied in a brief Latin address. There can be no doubt that
this bishop w^as our Eusebius. Sozomen {B. E. I. 19) states it directly; and Eusebius, although
he does not name the speaker, yet refers to him, as he had referred to the orator at the dedication
of Paulinus' church at Tyre, in such a way as to make it clear that it was himself; and moreover
in his Vita Constantini, I. i, he mentions the fact that he had in the midst of an assembly of the
servants of God addressed an oration to the Emperor on the occasion of the latter's vicennalia,
i.e. in 325 a.d. On the other hand, however, Theodoret {^H. £. 1. j) states that this opening
oration was delivered by Eustathius, bishop of Antioch ; while Theodore of Mopsuestia and Phi-
lostorgius (according to Nicetas Choniates, T/ies. de 07-thod. fid. V. 7) assign it to Alexander of
Alexandria. As Lightfoot suggests, it is possible to explain the discrepancy in the reports by
C 2
20 PROLEGOMENA.
supposing that Enstathius and Alexander, the two great patriarchs, first addressed a few words
to the Emperor and that then Eusebius delivered the regular oration. This supposition is not at
all unlikely, for it would be quite proper for the two highest ecclesiastics present to welcome the
Emperor formally in behalf of the assembled prelates, before the regular oration was delivered
by Eusebius. At the same time, the supposition that one or the other of the two great patriarchs
must have delivered the opening address was such a natural one that it may have been adopted
by Theodoret and the other writers referred to without any historical basis. It is in any case
certain that the regular oration was delivered by Eusebius himself (see the convincing arguments
adduced by Stroth, p. xxvii. sq.). This oration is no longer extant, but an idea of its character
may be formed from the address delivered by Eusebius at the Emperor's iricennalia (which is
still extant under the title De laudibus Constantini; see below, p. 43) and from the general tone
of his Life of Constantine. It was avowedly a panegyric, and undoubtedly as fulsome as it was
possible to make it, and his powers in that direction were by no means slight.
That Eusebius, instead of the l)ishop of some more prominent church, should have been
selected to deliver the opening address, may have been in part owing to his recognized standing
as the most learned man and the most famous writer in the Church, in part to the fact that he
was not as pronounced a partisan as some of his distinguished brethren ; for instance, Alexander
of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Nicomedia ; and finally in some measure to his intimate relations
with the Emperor. How and when his intimacy with the latter grew up we do not know. As
already remarked, he seems to have become personally acquainted with him many years before,
when Constantine passed through Caesarea in the train of Diocletian, and it may be that a mutual
friendship, which was so marked in later years, began at that time. However that may be,
Eusebius seems to have possessed special advantages of one kind or another, enabling him to
come into personal contact with official circles, and once introduced to imperial notice, his wide
learning, sound common sense, genial temper and broad charity would insure him the friendship
of the Emperor himself, or of any other worthy officer of state. We have no record of an
intimacy between Constantine and Eusebius before the Council of Nicaea, but many clear intima-
tions of it after that time. In fact, it is evident that during the last decade at least of the
Emperor's hfe, few, if any, bishops stood higher in his esteem or enjoyed a larger measure of his
confidence. Compare for instance the records of their conversations (contained in the Vita
Constantini, I. 28 and II. 9), of their correspondence {ib. II. 46, III. 61, IV. 35 and 36), and
the words of Constantine himself {il>. III. 60). The marked attention paid by him to the
speeches delivered by Eusebius in his presence {ib. IV. t^^ and 46) is also to be noticed.
Eusebius' intimacy with the imperial family is shown likewise in the tone of the letter which he
wrote to Constantia, the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, in regard to a likeness of
Christ which she had asked him to send her. The frankness and freedom with which he remon-
strates with her for what he considers mistaken zeal on her part, reveal a degree of familiarity
which could have come only from long and cordial relations between himself and his royal
correspondent. Whatever other reasons therefore may have combined to indicate Eusebius as
the most fitting person to deliver the oration in honor of the Emperor at the Council of Nicaea,
there can be little doubt that Constantine's personal friendship for him had much to do with
his selection. The action of the Council on the subject of Arianism, and Eusebius' conduct in
the matter, have already been discussed. Of the bishops assembled at the Council, not far from
three hundred in number (the reports of eye-witnesses vary from two hundred and fifty to three
hundred and eighteen), all but two signed the Nicene creed as adopted by the Council. These
two, both of them Egyptians, were banished with Arius to Illyria, while Eusebius of Nicomedia,
and Thcognis of Nicaea, who subscribed the creed itself but refused to assent to its anathemas,
were also banished for a time, but soon yielded, and were restored to their churches.
Into the other purposes for which the Nicene Council was called, — the settlement of the dis-
pute respecting the time of observing Easter and the healing of the Meletian schism,— it is not neces-
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 21
sary to enter here. We have no record of the part which Eusebius took in these transactions.
Lightfoot has abundantly shown (p. 313 sq.) that the common supposition that Eusebius was the
autlior of the paschal cycle of nineteen years is false, and that there is no reason to suppose that
he had anything particular to do with the decision of the paschal question at this Council.
§ 7. Continuance of the Arian Controversy. Eusebius' Relatiojis to the Two Parties.
The Council of Nicsea did not bring the Arian controversy to an end. The orthodox party
was victorious, it is true, but the Arians were still determined, and could not give up their enmity
against the opponents of Arius, and their hope that they might in the end turn the tables on their
antagonists. Meanwhile, within a few years after the Council, a quarrel broke out between our
Eusebius and Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, a resolute supporter of Nicene orthodoxy. Accord-
ing to Socrates {H. E. I. 23) and Sozomen {H. E. II. 18) Eustathius accused Eusebius of
perverting the Nicene doctrines, while Eusebius denied the charge, and in turn taxed Eustathius
with Sabellianism. The quarrel finally became so serious that it was deemed necessary to sum-
mon a Council for the investigation of Eustathius' orthodoxy and the settlement of the dispute.
This Council met in Antioch in 330 a.d. (see Tillemont, VII. p. 651 sq., for a discussion of the
date), and was made up chiefly of bishops of Arian or semi-Arian tendencies. This fact, however,
brings no discredit upon Eusebius. The Council was held in another province, and he can have
had nothing to do with its composition. In fact, convened, as it was, in Eustathius' own city, it
must have been legally organized ; and indeed Eustathius himself acknowledged its jurisdiction
by appearing before it to answer the charges made against him. Theodoret's absurd account of
the origin of the synod and of the accusations brought against Eustathius {H. E. I. 21) bears
upon its face the stamp of falsehood, and is, as Hefele has shown {Conciliengeschichte, I. 451),
hopelessly in error in its chronology. It is therefore to be rejected as quite worthless. The
decision of the Council doubtless fairly represented the views of the majority of the bishops of
that section, for we know that Arianism had a very strong hold there. To think of a packed Council
and of illegal methods of procedure in procuring the verdict against Eustathius is both unnecessary
and unwarrantable. The result of the Council was the deposition of Eustathius from his bishopric
and his banishment by the Emperor to Illyria, where he afterward died. There is a division of
opinion among our sources in regard to the immediate successor of Eustathius. All of them
agree that Eusebius was asked to become bishop of Antioch, but that he refused the honor, and
that Euphronius was chosen in his stead, Socrates and Sozomen, however, inform us that the
election of Eusebius took place immediately after the deposition of Eustathius, while Theodoret
{H. E. I. 22) names EulaHus as Eustathius' immediate successor, and states that he lived but a
short time, and that Eusebius was then asked to succeed him. Theodoret is supported by
Jerome {Chron., year of Abr, 2345) and by Philostorgius {H. E. Ill, 15), both of whom insert
a bishop Eulalius between Eustathius and Euphronius. It is easier to suppose that Socrates and
Sozomen may have omitted so unimportant a name at this point than that the other three witnesses
inserted it without warrant. Socrates indeed implies in the same chapter that his knowledge of
these affairs is limited, and it is not surprising that Eusebius' election, which caused a great stir,
should have been connected in the mind of later writers immediately with Eustathius' deposi-
tion, and the intermediate steps forgotten. It seems probable, therefore, that immediately
after the condemnation of Eustathius, Eulalius was appointed in his place, perhaps by the same
Council, and that after his death, a few months later, Eusebius, who had meanwhile gone back to
Csesarea, was elected in due order by another Council of neighboring bishops summoned for
the purpose, and that he was supported by a large party of citizens. It is noticeable that the
letter written by the Emperor to the Council, which wished to transfer Eusebius to Antioch (see
Vita Const. III. 62), mentions in its salutation the names of five bishops, but among them is
only one (Theodotus) who is elsewhere named as present at the Council which deposed Eusta-
22 PROLEGOMENA.
thius, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nic^ea, as well as others whom we know to
have been on hand on that occasion, are not referred to by the Emperor. This fact certainly
seems to point to a different council.
It is greatly to Eusebius' credit that he refused the call extended to him. Had he been
governed simply by selfish ambition he would certainly have accepted it, for the patriarchate
of Antioch stood at that time next to Alexandria in point of honor in the Eastern Church.
The Emperor commended him very highly for his decision, in his epistles to the people of
Antioch and to the Council ( Vita Const III. 60, 62), and in that to Eusebius himself {ib. III. 61 ).
He saw in it a desire on Eusebius' part to observe the ancient canon of the Church, which
forbade the transfer of a bishop from one see to another. But that in itself can hardly have been
sufficient to deter the latter from accepting the high honor offered him, for it was broken without
scruple on all sides. It is more probable that he saw that the schism of the Antiochenes would
be embittered by the induction into the bishopric of that church of Eustathius' chief opponent,
and that he did not feel that he had a right so to divide the Church of God. Eusebius' general
character, as known to us, justifies us in supposing that this high motive had much to do with
his decision. We may suppose also that so difficult a place can have had no very great attractions
for a man of his age and of his peace-loving disposition and scholarly tastes. In Csesarea he had
spent his life ; there he had the great library of Pamphilus at his disposal, and leisure to pursue
his literary work. In Antioch he would have found himself compelled to plunge into the midst
of quarrels and seditions of all kinds, and would have been obliged to devote his entire attention
to the performance of his official duties. His own tastes therefore must have conspired with his
sense of duty to lead him to reject the proffered call and to remain in the somewhat humbler
station which he already occupied.
Not long after the deposition of Eustathius, the Arians and their sympathizers began to work
more energetically to accomplish the ruin of Athanasius, their greatest foe. He had become
Alexander's successor as bishop of Alexandria in the year 326, and was the acknowledged head of
the orthodox i)arty. If he could be brought into discredit, there might be hopes of restoring
Arius to his position in Alexandria, and of securing for Arianism a recognition, and finally a
dominating influence in the church at large. To the overthrow of Athanasius therefore all good
Arians bent their energies. They found ready accomplices in the schismatical Meletians of
Egypt, who were bitter enemies of the orthodox church of Alexandria. It was useless to accuse
Athanasius of heterodoxy ; he was too widely known as the pillar of the orthodox faith. Charges
must be framed of another sort, and of a sort to stir up the anger of the Emperor against him.
The Arians therefore and the Meletians began to spread the most vile and at the same time
absurd stories about Athanasius (see especially the latter's Apol. c. Avian. § 59 sq.). These at
last became so notorious that the Emperor summoned Athanasius to appear and make his defense
before a council of bishops to be held in Caesarea (Sozomen, H. E. II. 25 ; Theodoret, H. E.
I. 28). Athanasius, however, fearing that the Council would be composed wholly of his enemies,
and that it would therefore be impossible to secure fair play, excused himself and remained away.
But in the following year (see Sozomen, H. E. 11. 25) he received from the Emperor a summons
to appear before a council at Tyre. The summons was too peremptory to admit of a refusal,
and Athanasius therefore attended, accompanied by many of his devoted adherents (see Sozomen,
ib.; Theodoret, H. E. I. 30; Socrates, H. E. I. 28; Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. § 71 sq.;
Eusebius, Vita Const. IV. 41 sq., and Epiphanius, Hcsr. LXVIII. 8). After a time, perceiving
that he had no chance of receiving fair play, he suddenly withdrew from the Council and proceeded
directly to Constantinople, in order to lay his case before the Emperor himself, and to induce the
latter to allow him to meet his accusers in his presence, and plead his cause before him. There
was nothing for the Synod to do after his flight but to sustain the charges brought against him,
some of which he had not stayed to refute, and to pass condemnation upon him. Besides various
immoral and sacrilegious deeds of which he was accused, his refusal to appear before the Council of
I
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 23
Ccesarea the previous year was made an important item of the prosecution. It was during this
Council that Potamo flung at Eusebius the taunt of cowardice, to which reference was made above,
and which doubtless did much to confirm Eusebius' distrust of and hostility to the Athanasian party.
Whether Eusebius of Csesarea, as is commonly supposed, or Eusebius of Nicomedia, or some
other bishop, presided at this Council we are not able to determine. The account of Epiphanius
seems to imply that the former was presiding at the time that Potamo made his untimely accusa-
tion. Our sources are, most of them, silent on the matter, but according to Valesius, Eusebius
of Nicomedia is named by some of them, but which they are I have not been able to discover.
We learn from Socrates {^H. E. I. 28), as well as from other sources, that this Synod of Tyre was
held in the thirtieth year of Constantine's reign, that is, between July, 334, and July, 335. As
the Council was closed only in time for the bishops to reach Jerusalem by July, 335, it is probable
that it was convened in 335 rather than in 334. From Sozomen {H. E. II. 25) we learn also
that the Synod of Cassarea had been held the preceding year, therefore in 333 or 334 (the latter
being the date commonly given by historians) . While the Council of Tyre was still in session,
the bishops were commanded by Constantine to proceed immediately to Jerusalem to take part in
the approaching festival to be held there on the occasion of his tricennalia. The scene was one
of great splendor. Bishops were present from all parts of the world, and the occasion was
marked by the dedication of the new and magnificent basilica which Constantine had erected upon
the site of Calvary (Theodoret, I. 31 ; Socrates, I. 28 and Tf'h'y Sozomen, II. 26; Eusebius, Vita
Const. IV. 41 and 43). The bishops gathered in Jerusalem at this time held another synod
before separating. In this they completed the work begun at Tyre, by re-admitting Arius and
his adherents to the communion of the Church (see Socrates, I. 33 and Sozomen, II. 27). Accord-
ing to Sozomen the Emperor, having been induced to recall Arius from banishment in order to
reconsider his case, was presented by the latter with a confession of faith, which was so worded
as to convince Constantine of his orthodoxy. He therefore sent Arius and his companion
Euzoius to the bishops assembled in Jerusalem with the request that they would examine the
confession, and if they were satisfied with its orthodoxy would re-admit them to communion.
The Council, which was composed largely of Arius' friends and sympathizers, was only too glad
to accede to the Emperor's request.
Meanwhile Athanasius had induced Constantine, out of a sense of justice, to summon the
bishops that had condemned him at Tyre to give an account of their proceedings before the
Emperor himself at Constantinople. This unexpected, and, doubtless, not altogether welcome
summons came while the bishops were at Jerusalem, and the majority of them at once returned
home in alarm, while only a few answered the call and repaired to Constantinople. Among these
were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicsea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and other prominent
Arians, and with them our Eusebius (Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. §§86 and 87; Socrates, I. 2,2r
35 ; Sozomen, II. 28). The accusers of Athanasius said nothing on this occasion in regard to
his alleged immoralities, for which he had been condemned at Tyre, but made another equally
trivial accusation against him, and the result was his banishment to Gaul. Whether Constantine
banished him because he beheved the charge brought against him, or because he wished to pre-
serve him from the machinations of his enemies (as asserted by his son Constantine, and appar-
ently believed by Athanasius himself; see his Apol. c. Arian. § 87), or because he thought that
Athanasius' absence would allay the troubles in the Alexandrian church we do not know. The
latter supposition seems most probable. In any case he was not recalled from banishment until
after Constantine's death. Our Eusebius has been severely condemned by many historians for
the part taken by him in the Eustathian controversy and especially in the war against Athanasius.
In justice to him a word or two must be spoken in his defense. So far as his relations to
Eustathius are concerned, it is to be noticed that the latter commenced the controversy by
accusing Eusebius of heterodoxy. Eusebius himself did not begin the quarrel, and very likely
had no desire to engage in any such doctrinal strife ; but he was compelled to defend him-
24 PROLEGOMENA.
self, and in doing so he could not do otherwise than accuse Eustathius of Sabellianism ; for if
the latter was not satisfied with Eusebius' orthodoxy, which Eusebius himself believed to be
truly Nicene, then he must be leaning too far toward the other extreme ; that is, toward Sabel-
lianism. There is no reason to doubt that Eusebius was perfectly straightforward and honorable
throughout the whole controversy, and at the Council of Antioch itself. That he was not actuated
by unworthy motives, or by a desire for revenge, is evinced by his rejection of the proffered call to
Antioch, the acceptance of which would have given him so good an opportunity to triumph over
his fallen enemy. It must be admitted, in fact, that Eusebius comes out of this controversy with-
out a stain of any kind upon his character. He honestly believed Eustathius to be a Sabellian,
and he acted accordingly.
Eusebius has been blamed still more severely for his treatment of Athanasius. But again the
facts must be looked at impartially. It is necessary always to remember that Sabellianism was in
the beginning and remained throughout his life the heresy which he most dreaded, and which
he had perhaps most reason to dread. He must, even at the Council of Nicaea, have suspected
Athanasius, who laid so much stress upon the unity of essence on the part of Father and Son, of
a leaning toward Sabellianistic principles ; and this suspicion must have been increased when he
discovered, as he believed, that Athanasius' most staunch supporter, Eustathius, was a genuine
Sabellian. Moreover, on the other side, it is to be remembered that Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
all the other leading Arians, had signed the Nicene creed and had proclaimed themselves thor-
oughly in sympathy with its teaching. Our Eusebius, knowing the change that had taken place
in his own mind upon the controverted points, may well have believed that their views had under-
gone even a greater change, and that they were perfectly honest in their protestations of ortho-
doxy. And finally, when Arius himself presented a confession of faith which led the Emperor,
who had had a personal interview with him, to believe that he had altered his views and was in
complete harmony with the Nicene faith, it is not surprising that our Eusebius, who was naturally
unsuspicious, conciliatory and peace-loving, should think the same thing, and be glad to receive
Arius back into communion, while at the same time remaining perfectly loyal to the orthodoxy
of the Nicene creed which he had subscribed. Meanwhile his suspicions of the Arian party
being in large measure allayed, and his distrust of the orthodoxy of Athanasius and of his adhe-
rents being increased by the course of events, it was only natural that he should lend more or less
credence to the calumnies which were so industriously circulated against Athanasius. To charge
him with dishonesty for being influenced by these reports, which seem to us so absurd and pal-
pably calumnious, is quite unwarranted. Constantine, who was, if not a theologian, at least a
clear-headed and sharp-sighted man, believed them, and why should Eusebius not have done the
same ? The incident which took place at the Council of Tyre in connection with Potamo and
himself was important ; for whatever doubts he may have had up to that time as to the truth of
the accusations made against Athanasius and his adherents, Potamo's conduct convinced him that
the charges of tyranny and high-handed dealing brought against the whole party were quite true.
It could not be otherwise than that he should beheve that the good of the Alexandrian church,
and therefore of the Church at large, demanded the deposition of the seditious and tyrannous
archbishop, who was at the same time quite probably Sabellianistic in his tendencies. It must
in justice be noted that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that our Eusebius had
anything to do with the dishonorable intrigues of the Arian party throughout this controversy.
Athanasius, who cannot say enough in condemnation of the tactics of Eusebius of Nicomedia an,d
his supporters, never mentions Eusebius of Csesarea in a tone of bitterness. He refers to him
occasionally as a member of the opposite party, but he has no complaints to utter against him,
as he has against the others. This is very significant, and should put an end to all suspicions of
unworthy conduct on Eusebius' part. It is to be observed that the latter, though having good
cause as he believed to condemn Athanasius and his adherents, never acted as a leader in the war
against them. His name, if mentioned at all, occurs always toward the end of the list as one of
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. i5
the minor combatants, although his position and his learning would have entitled him to take the
most prominent position in the whole affair, if he had cared to. He was but true to his general
character in shrinking from such a controversy, and in taking part in it only in so far as his con-
science compelled him to. We may suspect indeed that he would not have made one of the
small party that repaired to Constantinople in response to the Emperor's imperious summons had
it not been for the celebration of Constantine's tricennalia, which was taking place there at the
time, and at which he delivered, on the special invitation of the Emperor and in his presence, one
of his greatest orations. Certain it is, from the account which he gives in his Vita Constantini,
that both in Constantinople and in Jerusalem the festival of the tricennalia, with its attendant cere-
monies, interested him much more than did the condemnation of Athanasius.
§ 8. Eusebius and Marcellus.
It was during this visit to Constantinople that another synod was held, at which Eusebius was
present, and the result of which was the condemnation and deposition of the bishop Marcellus
of Ancyra (see Socrates, I. 36 ; Sozomen, II. 7^2> \ Eusebius, Contra Marc. II. 4). The attitude
of our Euseoius toward Marcellus is again significant of his theological tendencies. Marcellus
had written a book against Asterius, a prominent Arian, in which, in his zeal for the Nicene ortho-
doxy, he had laid himself open to the charge of Sabellianism. On this account he was deposed
by the Constantinopolitan Synod, and our Eusebius was urged to write a work exposing his errors
and defending the action of the Council. As a consequence he composed his two works against
Marcellus which will be described later. That Eusebius, if not in the case of Athanasius and
possibly not in that of Eustathius, had at least in the present case good ground for the belief that
Marcellus was a Sabellian, or Sabellianistic in tendency, is abundantly proved by the citations which
he makes from Marcellus' own works ; and, moreover, his judgment and that of the Synod was
later confirmed even by Athanasius himself. Though not suspecting Marcellus for some time,
Athanasius finally became convinced that he had deviated from the path of orthodoxy, and, as
Newman has shown (in his introduction to Athanasius' fourth discourse against the Arians, Oxford
Library of the Fathers, vol. 19, p. 503 sq.), directed that discourse against his errors and those
of his followers.
The controversy with Marcellus seems to have been the last in which Eusebius was engaged,
and it was opposition to the dreaded heresy of Sabellius which moved him here as in all the
other cases. It is important to emphasize, however, what is often overlooked, that though Euse-
bius during these years was so continuously engaged in controversy with one or another of the
members of the anti- Arian party, there is no evidence that he ever deviated from the doctrinal
position which he took at the Council of Nicgea. After that date it was never Arianism which
he consciously supported ; it was never the Nicene orthodoxy which he opposed. He sup-
ported those members of the old Arian party who had signed the Nicene creed and protested
that they accepted its teaching, against those members of the opposite party whom he believed
to be drifting toward Sabellianism, or acting tyrannously and unjustly toward their opponents.
The anti-Sabellianistic interest influenced him all the time, but his post- Nicene writings contain
no evidence that he had fallen back into the Arianizing position which he had held before 325.
They reveal, on the contrary, a fair type of orthodoxy, colored only by its decidedly anti-
Sabellian emphasis.
§ 9. The Death of Eusebius.
In less than two years after the celebration of his tricennalia, on May 22, 337 a.d., the great
Constantine breathed his last, in Nicomedia, his former Capital. Eusebius, already an old man,
produced a lasting testimonial of his own unbounded affection and admiration for the first Chris-
tian emperor, in his Life of Constantine. Soon afterward he followed his imperial friend at the
26 PROLEGOMENA.
advanced age of nearly, if not quite, eighty years. The exact date of his death is unknown, but
it can be fixed approximately. We know from Sozomen (ZT. E. III. 5) that in the summer of
341, when a council was held at Antioch (on the date of the Council, which we are able to fix
with great exactness, see Hefele, Concilicngesch. I. p. 502 sq.) Acacius, Eusebius' successor, was
already bishop of Csesarea. Socrates (Zf. E. II. 4) and Sozomen (ZT. E. III. 2) both mention
the death of Eusebius and place it shortly before the death of Constantine the younger, which
took place early in 340 (see Tillemont's Hist, des Emp. IV. p. 327 sq.), and after the intrigues
had begim which resulted in Athanasius' second banishment. We are thus led to place Eusebius'
death late in the year 339, or early in the year 340 (cf. Lightfoot's article, p. 318).
CHAPTER II.
The Writings of Eusebius.
§ I. Eusebius as a Writer.
EusEnius was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity, and his labors covered almost
every field of theological learning. In the words of Lightfoot he was " historian, apologist,
topographer, exegete, critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn." It is as an historian that he is
best known, but the importance of his historical writings should not cause us to overlook, as
modern scholars have been prone to do, his invaluable productions in other departments. Light-
foot passes a very just judgment upon the importance of his works in the following words : " If
the permanent utility of an author's labors may be taken as a test of literary excellence, Eusebius
will hold a very high place indeed. The Ecclesiastical History is absolutely unique and indis-
pensable. The Chronicle is the vast storehouse of information relating to the ancient monarchies
of the world. The Preparation and Demonstration are the most important contributions to
theology in their own province. Even the minor works, such as the Martyrs of Palestine, the
Life of Constantine, the Questions addressed to Stephanus and to Marinus, and others, would
leave an irreparable blank, if they were obliterated. And the same permanent value attaches also
to his more technical treatises. The Canons and Sections have never yet been superseded for
their particular purpose. The Topography of Palestine is the most important contribution to our
knowledge in its own department. In short, no ancient ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity
under heavier obligations."
If we look in Eusebius' works for evidences of brilliant genius we shall be disappointed. He
did not possess a great creative mind hke Origen's or Augustine's. His claim to greatness rests
upon his vast erudition and his sterling sense. His powers of acquisition were remarkable and
his diligence in study unwearied. He had at his command undoubtedly more acquired material
than any man of his age, and he possessed that true literary and historical instinct which enabled
him to select from his vast stores of knowledge those things which it was most worth his while to
tell to the world. His writings therefore remain valuable while the works of many others, perhaps
no less richly equipped than himself for the mission of adding to the sum of human knowledge,
are entirely forgotten. He thus had the ability to do more than acquire ; he had the ability
to impart to others the very best of that which he acquired, and to make it useful to them. There
is not in his writings the brilliancy which we find in some others, there is not the same sparkle
and freshness of new and suggestive thought, there is not the same impress of an overmastering
individuality which transforms everything it touches. There is, however, a true and solid merit
which marks his works almost without exception, and raises them above the commonplace. His
exegesis is superior to that of most of his contemporaries, and his apologetics is marked by
fairness of statement, breadth of treatment, and instinctive appreciation of the difference between
the important and the unimportant points under discussion, which give to his apologetic works a
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 27
permanent value. His wide acquaintance, too, with other systems than his own, and with the
products of Pagan as well as Christian thought, enabled him to see things in their proper relations
and to furnish a treatment of the great themes of Christianity adapted to the wants of those who
had looked beyond the confines of a single school. At the same time it must be acknowledged
that he was not always equal to the grand opportunities which his acquaintance with the works
and lives of other men and other peoples opened before him. He does not always reveal the
possession of that high quality of genius which is able to interpret the most various forces and to
discover the higher principles of unity which alone make them intelligible ; indeed, he often loses
himself completely in a wilderness of thoughts and notions which have come to him from other
men and other ages, and the result is dire confusion.
We shall be disappointed, too, if we seek in the works of Eusebius for evidences of a refined
literary taste, or for any of the charms which attach to the writings of a great master of compo-
sition. His style is, as a rule, involved and obscure, often painfully rambling and incoherent.
This quality is due in large part to the desultoriness of his thinking. He did not often enough
clearly define and draw the boundaries of his subject before beginning to write upon it. He
apparently did much of his thinking after he had taken pen in hand, and did not subject what
he had thus produced to a sufficiently careful revision, if to any revision at all. Thoughts and
suggestions poured in upon him while he was writing ; and he was not always able to resist the
temptation to insert them as they came, often to the utter perversion of his train of thought, and
to the ruin of the coherency and perspicuity of his style. It must be acknowledged, too, that his
literary taste was, on the whole, decidedly vicious. Whenever a flight of eloquence is attempted
by him, as it is altogether too often, his style becomes hopelessly turgid and pretentious. At such
times his skill in mixing metaphors is something astounding (compare, for instance, H. E. IL 14).
On the other hand, his works contain not a few passages of real beauty. This is especially true
of his Itfariyrs of Palestine, where his enthusiastic admiration for and deep sympathy with the
heroes of the faith cause him often to forget himself and to describe their sufferings in language
of genuine fire or pathos. At times, too, when he has a sharply defined and absorbing aim in
mind, and when the subject with which he is dealing does not seem to him to demand rhetorical
adornment, he is simple and direct enough in his language, showing in such cases that his
commonly defective style is not so much the consequence of an inadequate command of the
Greek tongue as of desultory thinking and vicious literary taste.
But while we find much to criticise in Eusebius' writings, we ought not to fail to give him
due credit for the conscientiousness and faithfulness with which he did his work. He wrote often,
it is true, too rapidly for the good of his style, and he did not always revise his works as care-
fully as he should have done ; but we seldom detect undue haste in the collection of materials or
carelessness and negligence in the use of them. He seems to have felt constantly the responsi-
bilities which rested upon him as a scholar and writer, and to have done his best to meet those
responsibilities. It is impossible to avoid contrasting him in this respect with the most learned
man of the ancient Latin Church, St. Jerome. The haste and carelessness with which the latter
composed his De Viiis Illustribiis, and with which he translated and continued Eusebius' Chronicle,
remain an everlasting disgrace to him. An examination of those and of some others of Jerome's
works must tend to raise Eusebius greatly in our esteem. He was at least conscientious and
honest in his work, and never allowed himself to palm off ignorance as knowledge, or to deceive
his readers by sophistries, misstatements, and pure inventions. He aimed to put the reader into
possession of the knowledge which he had himself acquired, but was always conscientious enough
to stop there, and not attempt to make fancy play the role of fact.
One other point, which was mentioned some pages back, and to which Lightfoot calls particular
attention, should be referred to here, because of its bearing upon the character of Eusebius'
writings. He was, above all things, an apologist ; and the apologetic aim governed both the
selection of his subjects and method of his treatment. He composed none of his works with a
2g PROLEGOMENA.
purely scientific aim. He thought always of the practical result to be attained, and his selection of
material and his choice of method were governed by that. And yet we must recognize the fact that
this aim was never narrowing in its effects. He took a broad view of apologetics, and in his lofty
conception of the Christian religion he beUeved that every field of knowledge might be laid under
tribute to it. He was bold enough to be confident that history, philosophy, and science all con-
tribute to our understanding and appreciation of divine truth ; and so history and philosophy and
science were studied and handled by him freely and fearlessly. He did not feel the need of
distorting truth of any kind because it might work injury to the religion which he professed. On
the contrary, he had a sublime faith which led him to believe that all truth must have its place
and its mission, and that the cause of Christianity will be benefited by its discovery and diffusion.
As an apologist, therefore, all fields of knowledge had an interest for him ; and he was saved that
pettiness of mind and narrowness of outlook which are sometimes characteristic of those who
write with a purely practical motive.
§ 2. Catalogue of his Works.
There is no absolutely complete edition of Eusebius' extant works. The only one which can
lay claim even to relative completeness is that of Migne : Eusebii Pa^nphili, Casarece Palestince
Episcopi, Opera omnia qi/ce extant, curis variorum, nempe : Henrici Valesii, Francisci Vigeri,
Bernardi Montfauconii, Card. Angela Maii edita ; collegit et denuo recognovit J. P. Migne. Par.
1857. 6 vols (torn. XIX.- XXIV. of Migne's Patrologia Grceca). This edition omits the works
which are extant only in Syriac versions, also the Topica, and some brief but important Greek
fragments (among them the epistles to Alexander and Euphration). The edition, however, is
invaluable and cannot be dispensed with. References to it (under the simple title Opera) will
be given below in connection with those works which it contains. Many of Eusebius' writings,
especially the historical, have been published separately. Such editions will be mentioned in
their proper place in the Catalogue.
More or less incomplete lists of our author's writings are given by Jerome {De vir. ill.
87) ; by Nicephorus Callistus {H. E. VI. 37) ; by Ebedjesu (in Assemani's Bibl. Orient. III.
p. 18 sq.) ; by Photius {Bibl. 9-13, 27, 39, 127) ; and by Suidas (who simply copies the Greek
version of Jerome) . Among modern works all the lives of Eusebius referred to in the previous
chapter give more or less extended catalogues of his writings. In addition to the works mentioned
there, valuable lists are also found in Lardner's Credibility, Part II. chap. 72, and especially in
Fabricius' Bibl. Grceca (ed. 1714), vol. VI. p. 30 sq.
The writings of Eusebius that are known to us, extant and non-extant, may be classified for
convenience' sake under the following heads : I. Historical. II. Apologetic. III. Polemic.
IV. Dogmatic. V. Critical and Exegetical. VI. Biblical Dictionaries. VII. Orations.
VIII. Epistles. IX. Spurious or doubtful works. The classification is necessarily somewhat
artificial, and claims to be neither exhaustive nor exclusive.^
I. Historical Works.
Life of PampJiilus (rj tov Uaix<f)i\ov (3lov a.vaypa<f>-^ ; see H. E. VI. 32). Eusebius himself
refers to this work in four passages (N. E. VI. 32, VII. 32, VIII. 13, and Mart. Pal c. 11).
In the last he informs us that it consisted of three books. The work is mentioned also more than
once by Jerome (De vir. ill. Si ; Ep. ad Marcellam, Migne's ed. Ep. 34 ; Contra Ruf. I. 9), who
speaks of it in terms of praise, and in the last passage gives a brief extract from the third book,
which is, so far as known, the only extant fragment of the work. The date of its composition can
be fixed within comparatively narrow limits. It must of course have been written before the shorter
recension of the Martyrs of Palestine, which contains a reference to it (on its relation to the
> In the preparation of the following Catalogue of Eusebius' writings Stein, and especially Lightfoot, have been found most helpf.il.
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 29
longer recension, which does not mention it, see below, p. 30), and also before the History (i.e.
as early as 313 a.d. (?), see below, p. 45). On the other hand, it was written after Pamphilus'
death (see H. E. VII. 32, 25), which occurred in 310.
Martyrs of Palestine (Tre/at twi/ Iv IlaXatcrTtv}; fxapTvprja-avTiov) . This work is extant in two
recensions, a longer and a shorter. The longer has been preserved entire only in a Syriac version,
which was published, with English translation and notes, by Cureton in 186 1. A fragment of the
original Greek of this work as presented by Simeon Metaphrastes had previously been published
by Papebroch in the Acta Sanctorum (June, tom. I. p. 64 ; reprinted by Fabricius, Hippolytus,
II. p. 217), but had been erroneously regarded as an extract from Eusebius' Life of Pamphilus.
Cureton's publication of the Syriac version of the Martyrs of Palestine showed that it was a part
of the original of that work. There are extant also, in Latin, the Acts of St. Procopius, which were
published by Valesius (in his edition of Eusebius' Hist. Eccles. in a note on the first chapter of
the Mart. Pal.; reprinted by Cureton, Mart. Pal. p. 50 sq.). Moreover, according to Cureton,
Assemani's Acta SS. Martyrum Orient, et Occidcntalium, part II. p. 169 sq. (Romge, 1748)
contains another Syriac version of considerable portions of this same work. The Syriac version
published by Cureton was made within less than a century after the composition of the original
work (the manuscript of it dates from 411 a.d.; see Cureton, ib., preface, p. i.), perhaps within
a few years after it, and there is every reason to suppose that it represents that original with
considerable exactness. That Eusebius himself was the author of the original cannot be doubted.
In addition to this longer recension there is extant in Greek a shorter form of the same work
which is found attached to the Ecclesiastical History in most MSS. of the latter. In some of
them it is placed between the eighth and ninth books, in others at the close of the tenth book,
while one MS. inserts it in the middle of VIII. 13. In some of the most important MSS. it is
wanting entirely, as likewise in the translation of Rufinus, and, according to Lightfoot, in the
Syriac version of the History. Most editions of Eusebius' History print it at the close of the
eighth book. Migne gives it separately in Opera, II. 1457 sq. In the present volume the
translation of it is given as an appendix to the eighth book, on p. 342 sq.
There can be no doubt that the shorter form is younger than the longer. The mention of the
Life of Pamphilus which is contained in the shorter, but is not found in the corresponding passage
of the longer form would seem to indicate that the former was a remodeling of the latter rather
than the latter of the former (see below, p. 30). Moreover, as Cureton and Lightfoot both
point out, the difference between the two works both in substance and in method is such as to
make it clear that the shorter form is a revised abridgment of the longer. That Eusebius himself
was the author of the shorter as well as of the longer form is shown by the fact that not only in
the passages common to both recensions, but also in those peculiar to the shorter one, the author
speaks in the same person and as an eye-witness of many of the events which he records. And
still further, in Chap. 1 1 he speaks of having himself written the Life of Pamphilus in three books,
a notice which is wanting in the longer form and therefore must emanate from the hand of the
author of the shorter. It is interesting to inquire after Eusebius' motive in publishing an abridged
edition of this work. Cureton supposes that he condensed it simply for the purpose of inserting
it in the second edition of his History. Lightfoot, on the other hand, suggests that it may have
formed " part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the martyrs were set off against the
deaths of the persecutors," and he is inclined to see in the brief appendix to the eighth book of
the History (translated below on p. 340) "a fragment of the second part of the treatise of which
the Martyrs of Palestine in the shorter recension formed the first." The suggestion is, to say the
least, very plausible. If it be true, the attachment of the shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine
to the Ecclesiastical History was probably the work, not of Eusebius himself, but of some copyist
or copyists, and the disagreement among the various MSS. as to its position in the History is more
easily explained on this supposition than on Cureton's theory that it was attached to a later edition
of the latter work by Eusebius himself.
30
PROLEGOMENA.
The date at which the Martyrs of Palestine \^-3& composed cannot be determined with cer-
tainty. It was at any rate not published until after the first nine books of the Ecclesiastical History
(i.e. not before 313, see below, p. 45), for it is referred to as a projected work in H. E. VIII.
I". 7. On the other hand, the accounts contained in the longer recension bear many marks of
having been composed on the spot, while the impressions left by the martyrdoms witnessed by the
author were still fresh upon him. Moreover, it is noticeable that in connection with the account
of Pamphilus' martyrdom, given in the shorter recension, reference is made to the Life of
Pamphilus as a book already published, while in the corresponding account in the longer recen-
sion no such book is referred to. This would seem to indicate that the Life of Pamphilus was
written after the longer, but before the shorter recension of the Martyrs. But on the other hand
the Life was written before the Ecclesiastical History (see above, p. 29), and consequently before
the pubUcation of either recension of the Martyrs. May it not be that the accounts of the various
martyrdoms were written, at least some of them, during the persecution, but that they were not
arranged, completed, and published until 313, or later? If this be admitted we may suppose
that the account of Pamphilus' martyrdom was written soon after his death and before the Life
was begun. When it was later embodied with the other accounts in the one work On the Martyrs
of Palestine it may have been left just as it was, and it may not have occurred to the author to
insert a reference to the Life of Pamphilus which had meanwhile been published. But when he
came to abridge and in part rewrite for a new edition the accounts of the various martyrdoms
contained in the work On Martyrs he would quite naturally refer the reader to the Life for fuller
particulars.
If we then suppose that the greater part of the longer recension of the Martyrs was already
complete before the end of the persecution, it is natural to conclude that the whole work was
published at an early date, probably as soon as possible after the first edition of the History.
How much later the abridgment was made we cannot tell.^
The differences between the two recensions lie chiefly in the greater fullness of detail on the
part of the longer one. The arrangement and general mode of treatment is the same in both.
They contain accounts of the Martyrs that suffered in Palestine during the years 303-310, most
of whom Eusebius himself saw.
Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms (dpxatwv fiapTvpLoiv o-waywyij) . This work is mentioned by
Eusebius in his H. E. IV. 15, V. prsef., 4, 21. These notices indicate that it was not an original
1 Since the above section was written, another possibility has
suggested itself to me. As remarked below, on p. 45, it is possible
that Eusebius issued a second edition of his History in the year 324
or 325, with a tenth book added, and that he inserted at that time
two remarks not contained in the first edition of the first nine books.
It is possible, therefore, to suppose that the references to the I'ita
Painphili, as an already published book, found in H. E. VI. 32 and
VII. 32, may have been added at the same time. Turning to the
latter passage we find our author saying, " It would be no small
matter to show what sort of man he [Pamphilus] was, and whence
he came. But we have described in a separate work devoted to him
all the particulars of his life, and of the school which he established,
and the trials which he endured in many confessions during the per-
secution, and the crown of martyrdom with which he was finally
honored. Bitt of all who were there he was the most admirable"
(aAA' oCto? fiiv Tu>v rfiSe 6avixa<nuiTaT0^). The aAAd, iui, seems
very unnatural after the paragraph in regard to the work which
Eusebius had already written. In fact, to give the word its proper
adversative force after what precedes is quite impossible, and it is
therefore commonly rendered (as in the translation of the passage
on p. 32r, below) simply "indeed." If we suppose the passage in
regard to the Biography of Pamphilus to be a later insertion, the
use of the aAAa becomes quite explicable. " It would be no small
matter to show what sort of man he was and whence he came.
Sitt (this much I can say here) he was the most admirable of all
who were there." Certainly the reference at this point to the F/Va
Pamphili thus has something of the look of a later insertion. In
VI. 32, the reference to that work might be struck out without in
the least impairing the continuity of thought. Still further, in VIII.
13, where the Vita is mentioned, although the majority of the MSS.
followed by most of the modern editions have the past tense dveypa-
^a^e.v " we have written," three of the best MSS. read iroypdi/zofie;'
" we shall write." Might not this confusion have arisen from the
fact that Eusebius, in revising the History, instead of rewriting this
whole passage simply substituted in the copy which he had before
him the word a.;'eypdi//a^i€i' for the earlier avaypai/fofici', and that
some copyist, or copyists, finding the earlier form still legible, pre-
ferred that to the substituted form, thinking the latter to be an inser-
tion by some unauthorized person? If we were then to suppose that
the Vita Patiiphilivfas written after the first edition of the History,
but before the issue of the complete work in its revised form, we^
should place its composition later than the longer recension of the
Martyrs, but earlier than the shorter recension, and thus explain
quite simply the lack of any reference to the Vita in the former.
Against the theory stated in this note might be urged the serious
objection that the reference to the Martyrs of Palestine in VIII. 13
is allowed to remain in the future tense even in the revised editinn
of the History, a fact which of course argues against the change of
di'a7pdi|/0|U.ti' to di'eypdil/ap.ei' in the reference to the I'ita in the
same chapter. Indeed, I do not wish to be understood as maintaining
this theory, or as considering it more probable than the one stated
in the text. I suggest it simply as an alternative possibility.
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 31
composition, but simply a compilation ; a collection of extant accounts of martyrdoms which had
taken place before Eusebius' day. The work is no longer extant, but the accounts of the martyr-
dom of Pamphilus and others at Smyrna, of the persecution in Lyons and Vienna, and of the
defense of Apollonius in Rome, which Eusebius inserts in his Ecclesiastical History (IV. 15, V. i,
V. 21), are taken, as he informs us, from this collection. As to the time of compilolion, we can
say only that it antedates the composition of the earlier books of the History (on whose date,
see below, p. 45).
Chronicle {j^poviKoi KavoVes). Eusebius refers to this work in his Church History (I. i), in
his Prceparatio Evang. X. 9, and at the beginning of his Eclogce prophetica;. It is divided into
two books, the first of which consists of an epitome of universal history drawn from various
sources, the second of chronological tables, which " exhibit in parallel columns the succession
of the rulers of different nations in such a way that the reader can see at a glance with whom any
given monarch was contemporary." The tables " are accompanied by notes, marking the years
of some of the more remarkable historical events, these notes also constituting an epitome of
history." Eusebius was not the first Christian writer to compose a work on universal chronology.
Julius Africanus had published a similar work early in the third century, and from that Eusebius
drew his model and a large part of the material for his own work. At the same time his Chro7iicle
is more than a simple revision of Africanus' work, and contains the result of much independent
investigation on his own part. The work of Africanus is no longer extant, and that of Eusebius
was likewise lost for a great many centuries, being superseded by a revised Latin edition, issued
by Jerome. Jerome's edition, which comprises only the second book of Eusebius' Chronicle, is
a translation of the original work, enlarged by notices taken from various writers concerning
human history, and containing a continuation of the chronology down to his own time. This,
together with numerous Greek fragments preserved by various ancient writers, constituted our
only source for a knowledge of the original work, until late in the last century an Armenian trans-
lation of the whole work was discovered and published in two volumes by J. B. Aucher : Venice,
18 1 8. The Armenian translation contains a great many errors and not a few lacuncB, but it is
our most valuable source for a knowledge of the original work.
The aim of the Chronicle was, above all, apologetic, the author wishing to prove by means
of it that the Jewish religion, of which the Christian was the legitimate continuation, was older
than the oldest of heathen cults, and thus deprive pagan opponents of their taunt of novelty, so
commonly hurled against Christianity. As early as the second century, the Christian apologists
had emphasized the antiquity of Judaism ; but Julius Africanus was the first to devote to the
matter scientific study, and it was with the same idea that Eusebius followed in his footsteps.
The Chronology, in spite of its errors, is invaluable for the light it throws on many otherwise dark
periods of history, and for the numerous extracts it contains from works no longer extant.
There are good and sufficient reasons (as is pointed out by Salmon in his article in Smith and
Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography^ for supposing that two editions of the Chronicle were
published by Eusebius. But two of these reasons need be stated here : first, the chronology of
the Armenian version differs from that of Jerome's edition in many important particulars, diver-
gencies which can be satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition of a difference in the
sources from which they respectively drew ; secondly, Jerome states directly that the work was
brought down to the vicennalia of Constantine, — that is, to the year 325, — but the Chronicle is
referred to as an already pubHshed work in the EclogcB pj'opheticcs (I. i), and in the Prceparatio
Evang. (X. 9), both of which were written before 313. We may conclude, then, that a first
edition of the work was published during, or more probably before, the great persecution, and
that a second and revised edition was issued probably in 325, or soon thereafter.
For further particulars in regard to the Chronicle see especially the article of Salmon already
referred to. The work has been issued separately a great many times. We may refer here to
the edition of Scaliger, which was published in 1606 (2d ed. 1658), in which he attempted
32 PROLEGOMENA.
to restore the Greek text from the fragments of Syncellus and other ancient writers, and to the
new edition of Mai, which was printed in 1833 in his Scriptorum veteriim nova collectio, Tom.
VIII., and reprinted by Migne, Ettsebii Opera, I. 99-598. The best and most recent edition,
however, and the one which supersedes all earlier editions, is that of Alfred Schoene, in two
volumes: Berlin, 1875 and 1866.
Ecclesiastical History {iKKXrja-iaa-TLKi) laTopia). For a discussion of this work see below,
p. 45 sq.
Life of Constantine (eis tov /3tov rov fxaKapLov KoyvcrravTLvov rov /JacrtAews). For particulars in
regard to this work, see the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, on pp. sq., of this volume.
II. Apologetic Works.
Against Hicrocles {jrpo'i tovs viztp 'AttoXXwvlov tov rvavews 'lepoKXcov; Xoyovs, as Photius calls
it in his Bilfl. 39). Hierocles was governor of Bithynia during the early years of the Diocletian
persecution, and afterwards governor of Egypt. In both places he treated the Christians with
great severity, carrying out the edicts of the emperors to the fullest extent, and even making use
of the most terrible and loathsome forms of persecution (see Lactantius, Z>e Mort. Pers. 1 6, and
Eusebius, Mart. Pal. 5, Cureton's ed. p. 18). He was at the same time a Neo-Platonic philoso-
pher, exceedingly well versed in the Scriptures and doctrines of the Christians. In a work
against the Christians entitled Xo'yos (laXaXyOrj^ Trpos tovs xp'^^''''-"-^'^'"'^} ^e brought forward many
scriptural difficulties and alleged contradictions, and also instituted a comparison between Christ
and Apollonius of Tyana, with the intention of disparaging the former. Eusebius feels called upon
to answer the work, but confines himself entirely to that part of it which concerned Christ and
Apollonius, leaving to some future time a refutation of the remainder of the work, which indeed,
he says, as a mere reproduction of the arguments of Celsus, had been already virtually answered
by Origen (see chap. i). Eusebius admits that Apollonius was a good man, but refuses to con-
cede that he was anything more, or that he can be compared with Christ. He endeavors to show
that the account of Apollonius given by Philostratus is full of contradictions and does not rest
upon trustworthy evidence. The tone of the book is mild, and the arguments in the main sound
and well presented. It is impossible to fix the date of the work with any degree of certainty.
Valesius assigns it to the later years of the persecution, when Eusebius visited Egypt ; Stein says
that it may have been written about 312 or 313, or even earlier ; while Lightfoot simply remarks,
" It was probably one of the earliest works of Eusebius." There is no ground for putting it at
one time rather than another except the intrinsic probability that it was written soon after the
work to which it was intended to be a reply. In fact, had a number of years elapsed after the
publication of Hierocles' attack, Eusebius would doubtless, if writing against it at all, have given
a fuller and more complete refutation of it, such as he suggests in the first chapter that he may
yet give. The work of Hierocles, meanwhile, must have been written at any rate some time
before the end of the persecution, for it is mentioned in Lactantius' Div. Inst. V. 2.
Eusebius' work has been published by Gaisford : Eusebii Pamph. contra Hieroclcm et Mar-
celliim libri, Oxon. 1852 ; and also in various editions of the works of Philostratus. Migne, Opera
IV. 795 sq., reprints it from Olearius' edition of Philostratus' works (Lips. 1709).
Against Porphyry (Kara Uop(f>vpLov) . Porphyry, the celebrated Neo-Platonic philosopher,
regarded by the early Fathers as the bitterest and most dangerous enemy of the Church, wrote
toward the end of the third century a work against Christianity in fifteen books, which was
looked upon as the most powerful attack that had ever been made, and which called forth refu-
tations from some of the greatest Fathers of the age : from Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius of
Cresarea, and Apollinaris of Laodicea ; and even as late as the end of the fourth or beginning
of the fifth century the historian Philostorgius thought it necessary to write another reply to it
(see his //. ^. X. 10). Porphyry's work is no longer extant, but the fragments of it which
remain show us that it was both learned and skillful. He made much of the alleged contra-
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 33
dictions in the Oospel records, and suggested difificulties which are still favorite weapons in
the hands of skeptics. Like the work of Porphyry, and all the other refutations of it, the
Apology of Eusebius has entirely perished. It is mentioned by Jerome {de vir, ill. 81 and
Ep. ad Magnum, § 3, Migne's ed. Ep. 70), by Socrates {H. E. III. 23), and by Phi-
lostorgius (//. E. VIII. 14). There is some dispute as to the number of books it contained.
In his Ep. ad Afagii. Jerome says that " Eusebius et ApoUinaris viginti quinque, et triginta
volumina condiderunt," which implies that it was composed of twenty-five books ; while in his
dc vir. ill. Si, he speaks of thirty books, of which he had seen only twenty. Vallarsi says,
however, that all his MSS. agree in reading " twenty-five " instead of " thirty " in the latter
passage, so that it would seem that the vulgar text is incorrect.
It is impossible to form an accurate notion of the nature and quality of Eusebius' refutation.
Socrates speaks of it in terms of moderate praise (" which [i.e. the work of Porphyry] has been
ably answered by Eusebius"), and Jerome does the same in his Ep. ad Magnum ("Alteri
[i.e. Porphyry] Methodius, Eusebius, et ApoUinaris fortissime responderunt "). At the same
time the fact that ApoUinaris and others still thought it necessary to write against Porphyry
would seem to show that Eusebius' refutation was not entirely satisfactory. In truth, Jerome
{Ep. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, § 2, Migne's ed. Ep. 84) appears to rank the work of Apol-
linaris above that of Eusebius, and Philostorgius expressly states that the former far surpassed the
latter (IttX ttoXv KpaTtiv -^yMVLcrixevwv 'Eucre^ta) Kar avTov) . The date of Eusebius' work cannot be
determined. The fact that he never refers to it, although he mentions the work of Porphyry a
number of times, has been urged by Valesius and others as proof that he did not write it until
after 325 a.d. ; but it is quite possible to explain his sUence, as Lardner does, by supposing that his
work was written in his earlier years, and that afterward he felt its inferiority and did not care to
mention it. It seems, in fact, not unlikely that he wrote it as early, or even earlier than his work
against Hierocles, at any rate before his attention was occupied with the Arian controversy and
questions connected with it.
On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients (irepl t^s twv TraXaioiv dv8pC)v TroXuTraiSta?). This
work is mentioned by Eusebius in his Praep. Evang. VII. 8. 20 (Migne, Opera, III. 525), but
by no one else, unless it be the book to which Basil refers in his De Spir. Sane to, 29, as
Difficulties respecting the Polygamy of the Ancients. The work is no longer extant, but we can
gather from the connection in which it is mentioned in the Prceparatio, that it aimed at account-
ing for the polygamy of the Patriarchs and reconcUing it with the ascetic ideal of the Christian life
which prevailed in the Church of Eusebius' Ufetime. It would therefore seem to have been
written with an apologetic purpose.
Prcvparatio Evangelica {TrpoTrapaa-Kevrj evayyeXLKrj) and Demonstratio Evangelica ('EvayyeXiK^
dTToSei^ts). These two treatises together constitute Eusebius' greatest apologetic work. The
former is directed against heathen, and aims to show that the Christians are justified in accepting
the sacred books of the Hebrews and in rejecting the religion and philosophy of the Greeks.
The latter endeavors to prove from the sacred books of the Hebrews themselves that the Chris-
tians do right in going beyond the Jews, in accepting Jesus as their Messiah, and in adopting
another mode of life. The former is therefore in a way a preparation for the latter, and the two
together constitute a defense of Christianity against aU the world, Jews as well as heathen. In
grandeur of conception, in comprehensiveness of treatment, and in breadth of learning, this
apology undoubtedly surpasses aU other apologetic works of antiquity. Lightfoot justly says,
" This great apologetic work exhibits the same merits and defects which we find elsewhere in
Eusebius. There is the same greatness of conception marred by the same inadequacy of execu-
tion, the same profusion of learning combined with the same inability to control his materials,
which we have seen in his History. The divisions are not kept distinct ; the topics start up
unexpectedly and out of season. But with all its faults this is probably the most important
apologetic work of the early Church. It necessarily lacks the historical interest of the apologetic
VOL. I. D
34 PROLEGOMENA.
writings of the second century ; it falls far short of the thoughtfulness and penetration which
give a permanent value to Origen's treatise against Celsus as a defense of the faith; it lags
behind the Latin apologists in rhetorical vigor and expression. But the forcible and true
conceptions which it exhibits from time to time, more especially bearing on the theme which
may be briefly designated ' God in history,' arrest our attention now, and must have impressed
his contemporaries still more strongly ; while in learning and comprehensiveness it is without a
rival." The wide acquaintance with classical literature exhibited by Eusebius in the Prccparatto
is very remarkable. Many writers are referred to whose names are known to us from no other
source, and many extracts are given which constitute our only fragments of works otherwise
totally lost. The Prceparatio thus does for classical much what the History does for Christian
literature.
A very satisfactory summary of the contents of the Prceparatio is given at the beginning of
the fifteenth book. \\\ the first, second, and third books, the author exposes the absurdities of
heathen mythology, and attacks the allegorical theology of the Neo-Platonists ; in the fourth and
fifth books he discusses the heathen oracles ; in the sixth he refutes the doctrine of fate ; in
the seventh he passes over to the Hebrews, devoting the next seven books to an exposition of
the excellence of their system, and to a demonstration of the proposition that Moses and the
prophets lived before the greatest Greek writers, and that the latter drew their knowledge from
the former ; in the fourteenth and fifteenth books he exposes the contradictions among Greek
philosophers and the vital errors in their systems, especially in that of the Peripatetics. The
Pneparatio is complete in fifteen books, all of which are still extant.
The Deinonstratio consisted originally of twenty books (see Jerome's de vir. ill. 8i, and
Photius' Bibl. lo). Of these only ten are extant, and even in the time of Nicephorus Callistus
no more were known, for he gives the number of the books as ten i^H. E. VI. 37). There
exists also a fragment of the fifteenth book, which was discovered and printed by Mai {Script,
vet. nova coll. L 2, p. 173). In the first book, which is introductory, Eusebius shows why the
Christians pursue a mode of life different from that of the Jews, drawing a distinction between
Hebraism, the religion of all pious men from the beginning, and Judaism, the s^Decial system of
the Jews, and pointing out that Christianity is a continuation of the former, but a rejection of
the latter, which as temporary has passed away. In the second book he shows that the calling
of the Gentiles and the repudiation of the Jews are foretold in Scripture. In books three to nine
he discusses the humanity, divinity, incarnation, and earthly life of the Saviour, showing that all
were revealed in the prophets. In the remainder of the work we may assume that the same
general plan was followed, and that Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, and the spread of
his Church, were the subjects discussed in this as in nearly all works of the kind.
There is much dispute as to the date of these two works. Stroth and Cave place them after the
Council of Nicrea, while Valesius, Lightfoot, and others, assign them to the ante-Nicene period. In
two passages in the History Eusebius has been commonly supposed to refer to the Deinonstratio
(//. E. I. 2 and 6), but it is probable that the first, and quite likely the second also, refers to
the Eclogce Proph. We can, therefore, base no argument upon those passages. But in Prap.
Evang. XII. 10 {Opera, III. 969) there is a reference to the persecution, which seems clearly
to imply that it was still continuing ; and in the Demonstratio (III. 5 and IV. 6 ; Opei-a, IV.
213 and 307), which was written after the Prceparaiio, are still more distinct indications of the
continuance of the persecution. On the other hand, in V. 3 and VI. 20 ( Opera, IV. 364 and
474) there are passages which imply that the persecution has come to an end. It seems neces-
sary then to conclude, with Lightfoot, that the Demonstratio was begun during the persecution,
but not completed until peace had been established. The Prceparatio, which was completed
before the Demo?istratio was begun (see the procemium to the latter), must have been finished
during the persecution. It contains in X. 9 {Opera, III. S07) a reference to the Chronicle as an
already published work (sec above, p. 31).
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 35
The Prcrparatio and Dcinonstratio are found in Migne's edition of the Opera, III. and IV.
9 sq. A more recent text is that of Dindorf in Teubner's series, 1867. The Prccparatio has been
pubHshed separately by Heinichen, 2 vols., Lips. 1842, and by Gaisford, 4 vols., Oxon. 1843.
The latter contains a full critical apparatus with Latin translation and notes, and is the most
useful edition which we have. Seguier in 1846 published a French translation with notes. The
latter are printed in Latin in Migne's edition of the Opera, III. 1457 sq. The French translation
I have not seen.
The Dcmotistratio was also published by Gaisford in 2 vols., Oxon. 1852, with critical appa-
ratus and Latin translation. Hrenell has made the two works the subject of a monograph entitled
De Eusebio CcBsariensi rcligionis Christiana; Defcnsorc (Gottingse, 1843) which I know only
from the mention of it by Stein and Lightfoot.
PrcBparatio Ecclesiastica {^Y^KKkr\(na.(TTiKr\ llpoTrapaaKcvq) , and Dcmonstratio Ecclesiasiica
('EKK\r](nao-TiKr] 'ATroSet^ts) . These two works are no longer extant. We know of the former only
from Photius' reference to it in Bib/. 11, of the latter from his mention of it in Bib/. 12.
Lightfoot says that the latter is referred to also in the y//s Grtcco-Roinaninn (lib. IV. p. 295 ;
ed. Leunclav.). We know nothing about the works (except that the first according to Photius
contained extracts), and should be tempted to think them identical with the Prceparatio and
Demonstratio Evatig. were it not that Photius expressly mentions the two latter in another part
of his catalogue {Bib/. 10). Lightfoot supposes that the two lost works did for the society what
the Prcep. and Dein. Evang. do for the doctrines of which the society is the depositary, and he
suggests that those portions of the TJieopha^iia (Book IV.) which relate to the foundation of the
Church may have been adopted from the Dem. Ecc/esiastica, as other portions of the work (Book
V.) are adopted from the Dem. Evang.
If there is a reference in the Pra;p. Evang. I. 3 {Opera, III. ■^■^ to the Demonstratio Ecc/es.,
as Lightfoot thinks there may be, and as is quite possible, the latter work, and consequently in
all probability the Prap. Ecc/es. also, must have been written before 313 a.d.
Two Books of Objection and Defense ('EAey;^ou Kai 'ATroAoyms Aoyot 8i/o). These are no
longer extant, but are mentioned by Photius in his Bib/. 13. We gather from Photius' language
that two editions of the work were extant in his time. The books, as Photius clearly indicates,
contained an apology for Christianity against the attacks of the heathen, and not, as Cave supposed,
a defense of the author against the charge of Arianism. The tract mentioned by Gelasius of
Cyzicus (see below, p. 64) is therefore not to be identified with this work, as Cave imagined
that it might be.
Theophania or Divine Manifestation (OeocjidveLa) . A Syriac version of this work is extant in
the same MS. which contains the Martyrs of Pa/estine, and was first published by Lee in 1842.
In 1843 the same editor issued an EngUsh translation with notes and extended prolegomena
(Cambridge, i vol.). The original work is no longer extant in its entirety, but numerous Greek
fragments were collected and published by Mai in 1831 and 1833 {Script, vet. nov. co//. 1.
and VIII.), and again with additions in 1847 {Bib/. Nova Patrinn, IV. no and 310; reprinted
by Migne, Opera, VI. 607-690. Migne does not give the Syriac version). The manuscript
which contains the Syriac version was written in 411, and Lee thinks that the translation itself
may have been made even during the lifetime of Eusebius. At any rate it is very old and, so
far as it is possible to judge, seems to have reproduced the sense of the original with comparative
accuracy. The subject of the work is the manifestation of God in the incarnation of the Word.
It aims to give, with an apologetic purpose, a brief exposition of the divine authority and influ-
ence of Christianity. It is divided into five books which handle successively the subject and
the recipients of the revelation, that is, the Logos on the one hand, ami man on tlie other ; the
necessity of the revelation ; the proof of it drawn from its effects ; the i^roof of it drawn from
its fulfillment of prophecy ; finally, the common objections brought by the heathen against Christ's
character and wonderful works. Lee says of the work : " As a brief exposition of Christianity,
D 2
36 PROLEGOMENA.
particularly of its Divine authority, and amazing influence, it has perhaps never been surpassed."
" When we consider the very extensive range of inquiry occupied by our author, the great variety
both of argument and information which it contains, and the small space which it occupies ; we
cannot, I think, avoid coming to the conclusion, that it is a very extraordinary work, and one
which is as suitable to our own times as it was to those for which it was written. Its chief
excellency is, that it is argumentative, and that its arguments are well grounded, and logically
conducted."
The Thcophania contains much that is found also in other works of Eusebius. Large portions
of the first, second, and third books are contained in the O ratio de Laudibiis Constnntini, nearly
the whole of the fifth book is given in the Dem. Evang., while many passages occur in the Pncp.
Evang.
These coincidences assist us in determining the date of the work. That it was written after
persecution had ceased and peace was restored to the Church, is clear from IL 76, IIL 20, 79,
V. 52. Lee decided that it was composed very soon after the close of the Diocletian persecution,
but Lightfoot has shown conclusively (p. 333) from the nature of the parallels between it and other
writings of Eusebius, that it must have been written toward the end of his life, certainly later than
the De Laud. Const. (335 a.d.), and indeed it is not improbable that it remained unfinished at
the time of his death.
IIL Polemic Works.
Defense of Origcn ('ArroXoyia vTrlp 'nptyeVous). This was the joint work of Eusebius and
Pamphilus, as is distinctly stated by Eusebius himself in his I/. E. VI. 33, by Socrates, I/.E. III. 7, by
the anonymous collector of the Sy nodical Epistles {Ep. 19S), and by Photius, Bihl. 118. The last
WTiter informs us that the work consisted of six books, the first five of which were written by Euse-
bius and Pamphilus while the latter was in prison, the last book being added by the former after
Pamphilus' death (see above, p. 9). There is no reason to doubt the statement of Photius, and we
may therefore assign the first five books to the years 307-309, and assume that the sixth was written
soon afterward. The Defense has perished, with the exception of the first book, which was
translated by Rufinus {Ri/fin. ad Hieron. I. 582), and is still extant in his Latin version. Rufinus
ascribed this book expressly to Pamphilus, and Pamphilus' name alone appears in the translation.
Jerome (^Contra Riif. I. 8; II. 15, 23; III. 12) maintains that the whole work was written by
Eusebius, not by Pamphilus, and accuses Rufinus of having deliberately substituted the name of
the martyr Pamphilus for that of the Arianizing Eusebius in his translation of the work, in order
to secure more favorable acceptance for the teachings of Origen. Jerome's unfairness and
dishonesty in this matter have been pointed out by Lightfoot (p. 340). In spite of his endeavor
to saddle the whole work upon Eusebius, it is certain that Pamphilus was a joint author of it, and
it is quite probable that Rufinus was true to his original in ascribing to Pamphilus all the explan-
ations which introduce and connect the extracts from Origen, which latter constitute the greater
part of the book. Eusebius may have done most of his work in connection with the later books.
The work was intended as a defense of Origen against the attacks of his opponents (see
Eusebius' H. E. VI. 33, and the Preface to the Defense itself). According to Socrates {H. E.
VL 13), Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus all wrote against Origen. Of these
only Methodius had written before the composition of the Defense, and he was expressly at-
tacked in the sixth book of that work, according to Jerome {Contra Riif. I. 11). The wide
opposition aroused against Origen was chiefly in consequence not of his personal character, but
of his theological views. The Apology, therefore, seems to have been devoted in the main to
a defense of those views over against the attacks of the men that held and taught oi)posite
opinions, and may thus be regarded as in some sense a regular polemic. The extant book is
devoted principally to a discussion of Origen's views on the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is
not printed in Migne's edition of Eusebius' Opera, but is published in the various editions of
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 37
Origen's works (in Lommatzsch's edition, XXIV. 289-412). For further particulars in regard
to the work, see Delarue's introduction to it (Lommatzsch, XXIV. 263 sq.), and Lightfoot's article
on Eusebius, pp. 340 and 341.
Against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra (Kara MapKeWov tou 'AyKvpas Ittktkottov) . The occasion
of this work has been already described (see p. 25), and is explained by Eusebius himself in
Book II. chap. 4. The work must have been written soon after the Council at which Marcellus
was condemned. It aims simply to expose his errors, exegetical as well as theological. The
work consists of two books, and is still extant {Opera, VI. 707-S24).
On the Theology of the Church, a Refutation of Marcellus (ot tt/sos MapKcXAov eX£y;(ot Trepi t^s
iKKX7]crLa(TTLK7]<: ©coAoytas) . The occasion of this work is stated in the first chapter. In the
previous work Eusebius had aimed merely to expose the opinions of Marcellus, but in this he
devotes himself to their refutation, fearing that some might be led astray by their length and
plausibility. The work, which consists of three books, is still extant, and is given by Migne in
the Opera, VI. 825-1046. Both it and the preceding are published with the Contra Hieroclem
in Gaisford's Euseb. Painph. contra Hieroclem et Alarcellum, Oxon, 1852. Zahn has written
a valuable monograph entitled Marcellus von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867).
Against the Manicheans. Epiphanius {Hcer. LXVI. 21) mentions, among other refutations
of the Manicheans, one by our Eusebius. The work is referred to nowhere else, and it is possible
that Epiphanius was mistaken in his reference, or that the refutation he has in mind formed only
a part of some other work, but we are hardly justified in asserting, as Lightfoot does, that the
work cannot have existed.
IV. Dogmatic Works.
General Elementary Introduction ('H KadoXov (TToix^Lw^iq<i ela-ayoiy^). This work consisted
of ten books, as we learn from a reference to it in the Eclogce Propheticce, IV. 35. It was
apparently a general introduction to the study of theology, and covered a great variety of
subjects. Five brief fragments have been preserved, all of them apparently from the first book,
which must have dealt largely with general principles of ethics. The fragments were published
by Mai {Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316), and are reprinted by Migne {Opera, IV. 1271 sq.). In
addition to these fragments, the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth books of the work are extant
under the title :
Prophetical Extracts {Upoffy-qTCKoi 'EKAoyat). Although this formed a part of the larger
work, it is complete in itself, and circulated independently of the rest of the Introduction.
It contains extracts of prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the person and
work of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. It is divided into four books, the first
containing extracts from the historical Scriptures, the second from the Psalms, the third from
the other poetical books and from the prophets, the fourth from Isaiah alone. The personality
of the Logos is the main topic of the work, which is thus essentially dogmatic, rather than
apologetic, as it might at first glance seem to be. It was composed during the persecution,
which is clearly referred to in Book I. chap. 8 as still raging ; it must have been written there-
fore between 303 and 313. The date of these books, of course, fixes the date of the Gefieral
Introduction, of which they formed a part. The Eclogce are referred to in the History, I. 2. On
the other hand, they mention the Chronicle as a work already written (I. i : Opera, p. 1023) ;
a reference which goes to prove that there were two editions of the Chronicle (see above, p. 31).
The four books of the Prophetical Extracts were first published by Gaisford in 1842 (Oxford)
from a Vienna MS. The MS. is mutilated in many places, and the beginning, including the title
of the work, is wanting. Migne has reprinted Gaisford's edition in the Opera, IV. 1017 sq.
On the Paschal Festival {irtpX t^s tqv Trda-xa i6pTrj'i). This work, as Eusebius informs us in
his Vita Const. IV. 34, was addressed to the Emperor Constantine, who commends it very highly
in an epistle to Eusebius preserved in the Vita Const. IV. 35. From this epistle we learn, more-
3^ PROLEGOMENA.
over, that the work had been translated into Latm. It is no longer extant in its entirety, but
a considerable fragment of it was discovered by Mai in Nicetas' Catena on Luke, and pub-
lished by him in his Bibl. Nova Patritm, IV. p. 208 sq. The extant portion of it contains twelve
chapters, devoted partly to a discussion of the nature of the Passover and its typical significance,
partly to an account of the settlement of the paschal question at the Council of Nicaea, and partly
to an argument against the necessity of celebrating the paschal feast at the time of the Jewish Pass-
over, based on the ground that Christ himself did not keep the Passover on the same day as the Jews.
Jerome, although he does not mention this work in his catalogue of Eusebius' writings {de vir.
ill. 81), elsewhere (/^. 61) states that Eusebius composed a paschal canon with a cycle of nine-
\een years. This cycle may have been published (as Lightfoot remarks) as a part of the writing
under discussion. The date of the work cannot be determined with exactness. It was written
after the Council of Nicsea, and, as would seem from the connection in which it is mentioned in
the Vita Constantini, before the Emperor's tricemialia (335 a.d.), but not very long before.
The extant fragment, as published by Mai, is reprinted by Migne in the Opera, VI. 693-706.
V. Critical and Exegetical Works.
Biblical Texts. We learn from Jerome {Pncf. in lib?'iim Faralip^ that Eusebius and
Pamphilus published a number of copies of Origen's edition of the LXX., that is, of the fifth
column of the Hexapla. A colophon found in a Vatican MS., and given in fac-simile in Migne's
Opera, IV. S75, contains the following account of their labors (the translation is Lightfoot's) : " It
was transcribed from the editions of the Hexapla, and was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen
himself, which also had been corrected and furnished with scholia in his own handwriting ;
whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected [this copy]."
Compare also Field's Hexapla, I. p. xcix.
Taylor, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, III. p. 21, says: "The whole work [i.e.
the Hexapla] was too massive for multiplication ; but many copies of its fifth column alone
were issued from Csesarea under the direction of Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius, and
this recension of the LXX. came into common use. Some of the copies issued contained also
marginal scholia, which gave inter alia a selection of readings from the remaining versions in the
Hexapla. The oldest extant MS. of this recension is the Leiden Codex Sarravianus of the fourth
or fifth century." These editions of the LXX. must have been issued before the year 309, when
Pamphilus suffered martyrdom, and in all probability before 307, when he was imprisoned (see
Lardner's Credibility, Part II. chap. 72.
In later years we find Eusebius again engaged in the pubhcation of copies of the Scriptures.
According to the Vita Const. IV. 36, 37, the Emperor wrote to Eusebius, asking him to prepare
fifty sumptuous copies of the Scriptures for use in his new Constantinopolitan churches. The
commission was carefully executed, and the MSS. prepared at great cost. It has been thought
that among our extant MSS. may be some of these copies which were produced under Eusebius'
supervision, but this is extremely improbable (see Lightfoot, p. 334).
Ten Evangelical Cations, with the Letter to Carpianus prefixed (Kavoves SeKa ; Canones decern
harmonice evangeliorum prccjnissa ad Carpianuvi epistola). Ammonius of Alexandria early in
the third century had constructed a harmony of the Gospels, in which, taking Matthew as the
standard, he placed alongside of that Gospel the parallel passages from the three others.
Eusebius' work was suggested by this Llarmony, as he tells us in his epistle to Carpianus.
An inconvenient feature of Ammonius' work was that only the Gospel of Matthew could
be read continuously, the sequence of the other Gospels being broken in order to bring
their parallel sections into the order followed by Matthew. Eusebius, desiring to remedy this
defect, constructed his work on a different principle. He made a table of ten canons, each
containing a list of passages as follows : Canon I. ])assages common to all four Gospels ; II. those
common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke ; III. those common to Matt., Luke, and John ; IV. those
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 39
common to Matt., Mark, and John ; V. those common to Matthew and Luke ; VI. those com-
mon to Matt, and Mark; VII. those common to Matt, and John; VIII. those common to Luke
and Mark ; IX. those common to Luke and John ; X. those pecuUar to each Gospel : first to
Matthew, second to Mark, third to Luke, and fourth to John.
Each Gospel was then divided into sections, which were numbered continuously. The length
of tlie section was determined, not by the sense, but by the table of canons, each section com-
prising a passage common to four, to three, to two Gospels, or peculiar to itself, as the case might
be. A single section therefore might comprise even less than a verse, or it might cover more
than a chapter. The sections were numbered in black, and below each number was placed a
second figure in red, indicating the canon to which the section belonged. Upon glancing at that
canon the reader would find at once the numbers of the parallel sections in the other Gospels,
and could turn to them readily. The following is a specimen of a few lines of the first canon : —
MT. MP. A. m.
r, P i c
la B L 9
la 8 L i,j3
la 8 t 18
Thus, opposite a certain passage in John, the reader finds i(3 (12) written, and beneath it, A
(i). He therefore turns to the first canon (A) and finds that sections la (11) in Matthew, 8 (4) in
Mark, and i (10) in Luke are parallel with l(3 in John. The advantage and convenience of such
a system are obvious, and the invention of it shows great ingenuity. It has indeed never been
superseded, and the sections and canons are still indicated in the margins of many of our best
Greek Testaments (e.g., in those of Tregelles and of Tischendorf) . The date of the construction
of these canons it is quite impossible to determine. For further particulars in regard to them,
see Lightfoot's article on Eusebius, p. 334 sq., and Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the
New Testament, 2d ed. p. 54 sq. The canons, with the letter to Carpianus prefixed, are given
by Migne, Opera, IV. 12 75-1 292.
Gospel Questions and Solutions. This work consists of two parts, or of two separate works
combined. The first bears the title Gospel Questions and Solutions addressed to Stcphanus
(Trpos Sre'c^avoj/ Trept ToJi/ Iv cwyyeXtbts ^-qTrjixoLTwv Kal Xvaewv), and is referred to by Eusebius in
his Dem. Evang. VII. 3, as Questions and Solutions on the Genealogy of our Saviour (twv eis
T^v yeveaAoytW tov crayTrjpo^ 7jfj.(t}u ^rjTr]fj.a.To}V Kal Xrcrewv). The second part IS entitled Gospel
Questions and Solutions addressed to Marinus (Trpos M.aplvov) . The first work consisted of two
books, as we learn from the opening of the second work. In that passage, referring to the
previous work, Eusebius says that having discussed there the difficulties which beset the
beginning of the Gospels, he will now proceed to consider questions concerning the latter part
of them, the intermediate portions being omitted. He thus seems to regard the two works as
in a sense forming parts of one whole. In his de vir. ill. 81, Jerome mentions among the
writings of Eusebius one On the Discrepancy of the Gospels {De Evangeliorum Diaphonia), and
in his Comm. in Matt. chap. I. vers. 16, he refers to Eusebius' libri Sia<^wvtas emyyeAtwv. Ebed-
jesu also remarks, " Eusebius Csesariensis composuit librum solutionis contradictionum evangelii."
In the sixteenth century there were found in Sicily, according to the announcement of Latino
Latini, " libri tres Eusebii Csesariensis de Evangeliorum diaphonia," but nothing more has been
heard or seen of this Sicilian MS. There can be no doubt that the work referred to under
the title De Evangeliorum Diaphonia is identical with the Gospel Questions and Solutions,
for the discrepancies in the Gospels occupy a considerable space in the Questions and Solutions
as we have it, and the word lux^wia occurs frequently. The three books mentioned by Latino
Latini were therefore the two books addressed to Stephanus which Eusebius himself refers to, and
the one book addressed to Marinus. The complete work is no longer extant, but an epitome of
46 PROLEGOMENA.
it was discovered and published by Mai, together with numerous fragments of the unabridged
work, two of them in Syriac {Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV, 217 sq. ; reprinted by Migne, Opera, IV.
879-1016). In the epitome the work addressed to Stephanus consists of sixteen chapters, and
the division into two books is not retained. The work addressed to Marinus consists of only
four chapters.
The work purports to have been written in answer to questions and difficulties suggested by
Stephanus and Marinus, who are addressed by Eusebius in terms of affection and respect. The
first work is devoted chiefly to a discussion of the genealogies of Christ, as given by Matthew and
Luke ; the second work deals with the apparent discrepancies between the accounts of the resur-
rection as given by the different evangelists. Eusebius does not always reach a solution of the
difficulties, but his work is suggestive and interesting. The question as to the date of the work is
complicated by the fact that there is in the Dctn. Evang. VII. 3 a reference to the Questions and
Solutions addressed to Stepha^ius, while in the epitome of the latter work (^Quaest.'^W. § 7)
there is a distinct reference to the Demonstratio Evang. This can be satisfactorily explained
only by supposing, with Lightfoot, that the Epitome was made at a later date than the original
work, and that then Eusebius inserted this reference to the Demonstratio. We are thus led to
assume two editions of this work, as of others of Eusebius' writings, the second edition being a
revised abridgment of the first. The first edition, at least of the Quastiones ad Stephanum,
must have been published before the Demonstratio Evangelica. We cannot fix the date of the
epitome, nor of the Qucestiones ad Mariniwi.
Commentary on the Psalms (ei's roiis ij/aXfxov'i) . This commentary is extant entire as far as
the 118th psalm, but from that point to the end only fragments of it have been preserved. It
was first published in 1707, by Montfaucon, who, however, knew nothing of the fragments of the
latter part of the work. These were discovered and pubHshed by Mai, in 1847 {Bidl. Nov.
Patrum, IV. 65 sq.), and the entire extant work, including these fragments, is printed by Migne,
Opera, V. and VI. 9-76. According to Lightfoot, notices of extant Syriac extracts from it are
found in Wright's Catal. Syr. MSS. Brit. Mas. pp. 35 sq. and 125. Jerome {de vir. ill. 96
and Ep. ad Vigilantium, § 2 ; Migne's ed. Ep. 61) informs us that Eusebius of Vercellse trans-
lated this commentary into Latin, omitting the heretical passages. This version is no longer
extant. The commentary had a high reputation among the Fathers, and justly so. It is distin-
guished for its learning, industry, and critical acumen. The Hexapla is used with great diligence,
and the author frequently corrects the received LXX. text of his day upon the authority of one
of the other versions. The work betrays an acquaintance with Hebrew, uncommon among the
Fathers, but by no means extensive or exact. Eusebius devotes considerable attention to the
historical relations of the Psalms, and exhibits an unusual degree of good judgment in their treat-
ment, but the allegorical method of the school of Origen is conspicuous, and leads him into the
mystical extravagances so common to patristic exegesis.
The work must have been written after the close of the persecution and the death of the
persecutors {in Psal. XXXVI. 12). In another passage {in Psal. LXXXVII. 11) there seems to
be a reference to the discovery of the site of the Holy Sepulchre and the erection of Constantine's
basilica upon it (see Vita Const. III. 28, 30, &c.). The basihca was dedicated in the year 335
(see above, p. 24), and the site of the sepulchre was not discovered until the year 326, or later
(see Lightfoot, p. 336). The commentary must have been written apparently after the basilica
was begun, and probably after its completion. If so, it is to be placed among the very latest of
Eusebius' works.
Commentary on Isaiah (inroixvrjixaTa eis 'Hcraiui') . This work is also extant almost entire, and
was first published in 1706, by Montfaucon (Coll. Nova Patrum et Script. Grcec. II.; reprinted
by Migne, Opera, VI. 77-526). In his dc vir. ill. 81 Jerome refers to it as containing ten books
{in Isaiam libri decent), but in the preface to his Comment, in Isaiam he speaks of it as com-
posed of fifteen (Eusebius quoquc Pamphili juxta historicam explanationem quindecim edidit
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 41
volumma). In its present form there is no trace of a division into books. The commentary is
marked by the same characteristics which were noticed in connection with the one on the Psahns,
though it does not seem to have acquired among the ancients so great a reputation as that work.
It must have been written after the close of the persecution {in Is. XLIV. 5), and apparently
after the accession of Constantine to sole power (/;/ Is. XLIX. 23 compared with Vita Const.
IV. 28). If the commentary on the Psalms was written toward the close of Eusebius' life, as
assumed above, it is natural to conclude that the present work preceded that.
Commentary on Luke (ei's to Kara AovkSv emyye'Atov) . This work is no longer extant, but
considerable fragments of it exist and have been published by Mai {Bibl. Nova Patruvi, IV.
159 sq. ; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 529-606). Although the fragments are all drawn from
Catenoe on Luke, there are many passages which seem to have been taken from a commentary
on Matthew (see the notes of the editor). A number of extracts from the work are found in
Eusebius' Theophania (see Mai's introduction to his fragments of the latter work).
The date of the commentary cannot be fixed with certainty, but I am inclined to place it
before the persecution of Diocletian, for the reason that there appears in the work, so far as I have
discovered, no hint of a persecution, although the passages expounded offer many opportunities
for such a reference, which it is difficult to see how the author could have avoided making if a
persecution were in progress while he was writing ; and further, because in discussing Christ's
prophecies of victory and dominion over the whole world, no reference is made to the triumph
gained by the Church in the victories of Constantine. A confirmation of this early date may be
found in the extreme simplicity of the exegesis, which displays neither the wide learning, nor the
profound study that mark the commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah.
Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthiatis. This work is no longer extant, and we
know of it only from a reference in Jerome's Ep. ad Pamniachium, § 3 (Migne's ed. Ep.
49) : '* Origenes, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius Csesariensis, Didymus, Apollinaris latissime hanc
Epistolam interpretati sunt."
Excgetical Fragments. Mai has published brief fragments containing expositions of passages
from Proverbs {Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 75-78), from
Daniel (ib. p. 314 ; Migne, VI. 525-528), and from the Epistle to the Hebrews (ib. p. 207 ; Migne,
VI. 605). Fabricius mentions also fragments from a commentary on the Song of Songs as
published by Meursius, and says that other commentaries are referred to by Montfaucon in his
Epistola de Therapeutis, p. 151. We have no references in the works of the ancients to any such
commentaries, so far as I am aware, and it is quite possible that the various fragments given by
Mai, as well as those referred to by Fabricius may have been taken not from continuous commen-
taries, but from Eusebius' General Elementary hitroduction, or others of his lost works. Accord-
ing to Migne (VI. 527) some Greek Catenae published by Cramer in Oxford in the year 1884 con-
tain extensive fragments on Matthew and John, which, however, have been taken from Eusebius'
Qucest. Evang. Other fragments in Catenae on the same Evangelists and on Mark, have been
taken, according to Migne, from the Qucestiones ad Stepha?iitm, or from the Commentary on Luke.
It is, however, quite possible, as it seems to me, that Eusebius wrote a commentary on Daniel.
At any rate, the exegetical fragments which we have, taken with the extended discussions of certain
passages found in the Dem. Evang. VIII. 2 and in the Eelogce Proph. III. 40 sq., show that he
expounded at one time or another a considerable portion of the book.
VI. Biblical Dictionaries.
Interpretation of the Ethnological Terms in the Hebrew Scriptures. This work is no longer
extant, but is known to us from Eusebius' reference to it in the preface to his work On the
Names of Places, where he writes as follows : raJv dva t^v oiKov[X€vr]v iOuw i-rrl rrjv iWaSa. <j>(x)vr]v
fJL€ra(3aXcov ras iv Trj Oeta ypa(fifj K€Lix.iva<; kjipaioi'; ovofJuxcrL TT/Docrprycrei?. Jerome, in the preface tO
his Latin version of the same work, also refers to it in the following words : " . . . diversarum
42 PROLEGOMENA.
vocabula nationum, quae quomodo olim apud Hebr^os dicta sint, et nunc dicantur, exposuit."
No other ancient authority mentions the work so far as I am aware.
Chorography of Ancient J^udea with the Inheritances of the Ten Tribes. This work too is lost,
but is referred to by Eusebius in the same preface in the following words : t^s 1:6X0.1 'louSatas dTro
Trdcrr]^ Bl/SXov KaTaypa(f>r]v irtiroL-qiJiivo^ kuI to,? iv avrrj twv SwSeKa cfivXwv Biatpwv KXy'jpovi. Jerome
(/^.) says : " . . . Chorographiam terrae Judaeae, et distinctas tribuum sortes . . . laboravit."
It is remarked by Fabricius that this work is evidently intended by Ebedjesu in his catalogue,
where he mentions among the writings of Eusebius a Librum de Figiira Mundi (cf. Assemani's
Bibt. Orient. III. p. 18, note 7).
A Flan of Jerxtsalcni and of the Temple, accompanied with Memoirs relating to the Various
Localities. This too is lost, but is referred to by Eusebius ifb.) in the following words : cis iv
ypaclirj<; tvtto) t^s TraXat 8ia(3o7JTOv jJirjTpoTroXewi avrrj^ (Xeyo) 8k Tr]v 'lepovaaXrjp.) tov tc iv avTrj Itpov
Tryv eiKova Sta^apa^as /txcra irapadia€(j}<; toiv eis Toiis twous VTrop.vqp.a.Ti>iv. Jerome (^ib.) says : " ipsius
quoque Jerusalem templique in ea cum brevissima expositione picturam, ad extremum in hoc
opusculo laboravit."
On the Names of Places in Holy Scripture {ircpl tw roiriKCiv oi/o/xaTwv twv iv rfj Qua
ypa({>ij). In Jerome's version this work bears the title Liber de Situ et Nominibus Locorum
Hebraicorum, but in his de vir. ill. 81, he refers to it as tottlkw, liber imus, and so it is commonly
called simply Topica. It is still extant, both in the original Greek and in a revised and partly
independent Latin version by Jerome. Both are published by Vallarsi in Hieronymi Opera, III.
122 sq. Migne, in his edition of Eusebius' works, omits the Topica and refers to his edition of
Jerome's works, where, however, he gives only Jerome's version, not the original Greek (III.
859-928). The best editions of the Greek text are by Larsow and Parthey {Euseb. Pamph. Episc.
Cces. Onomasticon, &c., Berolini, 1862), and by Lagarde {Onomastica Sacra, I. 207-304, Got-
tingse, 1870). The work aims to give, in the original language, in alphabetical order, the names
of the cities, villages, mountains, rivers, &c., mentioned in the Scriptures, together with their
modern designations and brief descriptions of each. The work is thus of the same character as
a modern dictionary or Biblical geography. The other three works were narrower than this
one in their scope, but seem also to have been arranged somewhat on the dictionary plan. The
work is dedicated to Paulinus, a fact which leads us to place its composition before 325 a.d.,
when Paulinus was already dead (see below, p. 369). Jerome, in the preface to his version,
says that Eusebius wrote the work after his History and Chronicle. We are to conclude, then,
either that the work was published in 324 or early in 325, within a very few months after the
History, or, what is more probable, that Jerome is mistaken in his statement. He is proverbially
careless and inaccurate, and Eusebius, neither in his preface — from which Jerome largely quotes
in his own — nor in the work itself, gives any hint of the fact that his History and Chronicle were
already written.
On the Nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets {iztpX t-^? tov (SifSXcov twv 7rpo^r;rwv
ovo/xacnus koL oltto /ac'/jous Tt Tvepiiyti eKacrros). This work contains brief accounts of the several
prophets and notes the subjects of their prophecies. It is thus, so far as it goes, a sort of
biographical dictionary. It was first published by Curterius in his Procopii Sophistce Christianas
variarum in Isaiam Prophetavi commentaHonum epitome (Paris, 1850, under the title De
vitis Prophetarum, by which it is commonly known. We have no means of determining the date
of its composition. Curterius' text has been reprinted by Migne, Opera, IV. 1 261-12 72.
VII. Orations.
Panegyric on the Building of the Churches, addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre {Uavrj-
•yupiKos iiri Trj tu)v iKKXr](TLU)v oiKoSo/xr/, UavXCvw TvpLOiv i-Tna-KowtD ■Kpo(TiTf.(^uivrjp.ivo<i^ . This oralion
was delivered at the dedication of Paulinus' new church in Tyre, to which reference has already
been made (see above, p. 1 0- L has been preserved in Eusebius' History, Book X. chap. 4 (see
below, p. 370 sq.).
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 43
Oration delivered at the Vicennalia of Constantine. Eusebius refers to this in the Preface
to his Vita Constantini as elKocraf.Tr}piKol v/xvoi. It is to be identified with the oration dehvcred
at the opening of the Council of Nicsea {Vita Const. III. 11), as stated above, on p. kj. It is
unfortunately no longer extant.
Oration on the Scpitlclire of the Saviour. In his Vita Const. IV. 33 Eusebius informs us
that he delivered an oration on this subject (d/u,(^t rov aMrrjpLov fivrifrnTo^ Xoyos) in the presence
of the Emperor at Constantinople. In the same work, IV. 46, he says that he wrote a descrii)-
tion of the church of the Saviour and of his sepulchre, as well as of the splendid presents given
by the Emperor for their adornment. This description he gave in a special work which he
addressed to the Emperor (eV otKetw (TvyypafXfJiaTi TrapaSovres, avTw /SacrtAet Trpoa€cf)wvT^(Tafx.tv) . If
these two are identical, as has always been assumed, the Oration on the Sepulchre must have
been delivered in 335, when Eusebius went to Constantinople, just after the dedication of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (see above, p. 23), and just before the Oratio de
laudibus Constantini (see ib. IV. 46). That the two are identical has always been assumed, and
seems most probable. At the same time it is worthy of notice that in IV. 2,2> Eusebius speaks as
if he returned to Coesarea immediately after delivering his oration, and gives no hint of the
delivery of his De laud. Const, at that time. It is noticeable also that he speaks in IV. 46 of a
work {a-vyypajxfjia) not of an oration (Aoyos), and that in IV. 45 he mentions the fact that he has
described the splendid edifice and gifts of the Emperor in wanting (8ta ypd/xfiaTos) , which
would seem to imply something else than an address. Finally, it is to be observed that, whereas, in
IV. 46, he expressly refers to the church erected by Constantine and to his rich gifts in connection
with its construction, in IV. 33 he refers only to the sepulchre. It appears to me, in fact, quite
possible that Eusebius may be referring to two entirely different compositions, the one an oration
delivered after the discovery of the sepulchre and before the Emperor had built the church
(perhaps containing the suggestion of such a building), the other a descriptive work written after
the completion of that edifice. I present this only as a possibility, for I realize that against it
may be urged the unlikelihood that two separate works should have been composed by Eusebius
upon subjects so nearly, if not quite, identical, and also the probability that, if there were two,
both, and not one only, would have been attached to the end of the Vita Const, with the De
laud Const, (see IV. 46). Neither the Oration on the Sepulchre of the Saviour nor the Work
on the Church and the Sepulchre (whether the two are the same or not) is now extant.
Oration delivered at the Tricennalia of Constantine (ets Kcovo-TavTivoj/ tov (SacnXia rpiaKovrae-
TTjpiKos), commonly known under the title Oratio de laudibus Constantini. In his Vita Const.
IV. 46, Eusebius promised to append this oration, together with the writing On the Church and
the Sepulchre, to that work. The de laudibus is still found at the end of the MSS. of the Vita,
while the other writing is lost. It was delivered in Constantinople in 335 on the occasion of the
Emperor's tricennalia, very soon after the dedication of the church of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem (see above, p. 25). It is highly panegyrical, but contains a great deal of theology,
especially in regard to the person and work of the Logos. Large portions of it were afterward
incorporated into the Vita Constantini and the Theophania. The oration is published in most,
if not all, editions of the Vita Constantini ; in Migne, Opera, II. 1315-1440.
Oration in Praise of the Martyrs. This oration is mentioned in the catalogue of Ebedjesu
{ct orationeni de laudibus eorum [i.e. Martyrum Occidentalium] ; see Assemani, Bibl. Orient.
HI. p. 19), and, according to Lightfoot, is still extant in a Syriac version, which has been
published in the Jour^ial of Sacred Literatui-e, N. S., Vol. V. p. 403 sq., with an English trans-
lation by B. H. Cowper, ib. VI. p. 129 sq. Lightfoot finds in it an indication that it was delivered
at Antioch, but pronounces it of little value or importance.
On the Failure of Rain. This is no longer extant, and is known to us only from a reference
in the catalogue of Ebedjesu {et orationem de defectu pluvial ; see Assemani, ib.').
44 PROLEGOMENA.
VIII. Epistles.
To Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. The purpose and the character of this epistle have
been already discussed (see above, p. oo). A fragment of it has been preserved in the Proceed-
ings of the Second Council of Nicsea, Act VI., Tom. V. {Labdei et Cossartii Cone. VII. col. 497).
For a translation of the epistle, see below, p. 70. This and the following epistle were written
after the outbreak of the Arian controversy, but before the Nicene Council.
To Euphration, bishop of Balanece in Syria, likewise a strong opponent of the Arians (see
Athan. de Fitga, 3 ; Hist. Ar. ad Man. 5). Athanasius states that this epistle declared plainly
that Christ is not God (Athan. de Synod. 17). A brief fragment of it has been preserved in the
Acts of the Second Council of Nicsea (/.^.), which probably contains the very passage to which
Athanasius refers. Upon the interpretation and significance of the fragment, see above, p. 15.
To Constantia Augusta, the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had written
to Eusebius requesting him to send her a certain likeness of Christ of which she had heard.
Eusebius, in this epistle, rebukes her, and speaks strongly against the use of such representations,
on the ground that it tends toward idolatry. The tone of the letter is admirable. Numerous
fragments of it have been discovered, so that we have it now almost entire. It is printed in
Migne, Opera, II. 1545-1550. We have no means of ascertaining the date at which it was written.
To the Chureh of Ccesarea. This epistle was written from Nicsea in 325 a.d., during or
immediately after the Council. Its purpose and character have been discussed above on p. 16 sq.,
where a translation of it is given. The epistle is preserved by Athanasius {de Deere t. Syn. Nie.
app.); by Socrates, H. E. I. 8 ; by Theodoret, H. E. I. 11, and others. It is printed by
Migne, Opera, II. 1535-1544.
In the Acts of the Second Council of Nicsea {i.e.) we find a mention of " all the epistles "
of Eusebius, as if many were at that time extant. We know, however, only of those which have
been mentioned above.
IX. Spurious or Doubtful Works.
Fourteen Latin opuscula were discovered and published by Sirmond in 1643, and have been
frequently reprinted (Migne, Opera, VI. 104 7-1 208). They are of a theological character, and
bear the following titles : —
De fide adv. Sabeiiiu7n, iibri duo.
De Resur-rectione, iibri duo,
De Ineorporali et invisibili Deo.
De Ineorporali.
De Ineorporali Anima.
De Spiritali Cogitatu hominis.
De eo quod Deus Pater ineorporalis est, Iibri duo.
De eo quod ait Dominus, Non veni pacem, etc.
De Mandato Domini, Quod ait. Quod dico vobis in aure, etc.
De operibus bonis et malis.
De operibus bonis, ex epist. II. ad Coi'inth.
Their authenticity is a matter of dispute. Some of them may be genuine, but Lardner is
doubtless right in denying the genuineness of the two Against Sabellius, which are the most
important of all (see Lardner's Credibility, Part II. chap. 72).
Lightfoot states that a treatise. On the Star which appeared to the Magi, was published by
Wright in \}i\Q Journal of Sacred Literature (1S66) from a Syriac MS. It is ascribed to Eusebius,
but its genuineness has been disputed, and good reasons have been given for supposing that it
was written originally in Syriac (see Lightfoot, p. 345).
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 45
Fabricius {Bibl. Gr. VI. 104) reports that the following works are extant in MS. : Fragmen-
/iii/i lie Mensttris ac Poiidcrihiis (MSS. Is. Vossii, n. 179) ; Dc Morte Herodis (MS. in P>ibl.
Basil.) ; rnr/afio ad Caniiciiin Mosis in Exodo (Lambec. Ill, p. 35).
CHAPTER III.
EusEBius' Church History.
§ I. Date of its Composition.
The work with which we are especially concerned at this time is the Chirch History, the
original Greek of which is still extant in numerous MSS. It consists of ten books, to which is
added in most of the MSS. the shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine (see above, p. 29).
The date of the work can be determined with considerable exactness. It closes with a eulogy
of Constantine and his son Crispus ; and since the latter was put to death by his father in
the summer of 326, the History must have been completed before that time. On the other hand,
in the same chapter Eusebius refers to the defeat of Licinius, which took place in the year
323 A.D. This gives a fixed terminus a quo. It is not quite certain from Eusebius' words
whether the death of Licinius had already taken place at the time he wrote, but it seems probable
that it had, and if so, the completion of the work must be put as late as the summer of 324. On
the other hand, not the slightest reference is made to the Council of Nicaea, which met in the
summer of 325 ; and still further the tenth book is dedicated to PauHnus, at one time bishop of
Tyre and afterward bishop of Antioch (see Euseb. Contra Marc. I. 4, and Philost. H. E. III.
15), who was already dead in the summer of 325 : for at the Nicene Council, Zeno appears as
bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius as bishop of Antioch (see for further particulars Lightfoot, p. 322).
We are thus led to place the completion of the History in the year 324, or, to give the widest
possible Hmits, between the latter part of 323 and the early part of 325 a.d.
But the question has been raised whether the earher books may not have been composed
some years before this. Lightfoot (following Westcott) supposes that the first nine books were
completed not long after the edict of Milan and before the outbreak of the quarrel between Con-
stantine and Licinius in 314. There is considerable to be said in favor of this theory. The
language used in the dedication of the tenth book seems to imply that the nine books had been
completed some time before, and that the tenth is added as a sort of postscript. The close of
the ninth book strengthens that conclusion. Moreover, it would seem from the last sentences
of that book that Constantine and Licinius were in perfect harmony at the time it was written,
a state of affairs which did not exist after 314. On the other hand, it must be noticed that in
Book IX. chap. 9 Licinius' " madness " is twice referred to as having " not yet " seized him (in
§ I ovTTO) /AttvevTOs TOTC, and in § 1 2 ovTTUi TOT£ £<^' i}V uWcpov iKTreTTTWKC /Aavtai', T^v Slolvoluv eKT/3a7r€ts) .
It is necessary either to interpret both these clauses as later insertions (possibly by Eusebius' own
hand at the time when he added the tenth book; cf. also p. 30, above), or to throw the com-
position of the ninth book down to the year 319 or later. It is difficult to decide between these
alternatives, but I am inclined on the whole to think that Westcott' s theory is probably correct,
and that the two clauses can best be interpreted as later insertions. The very nature of his
History would at any rate lead us to think that Eusebius spent some years in the composition
of it, and that the earlier books, if not published, were at least completed long before the issue
of the ten books as a whole. The Chronicle is referred to as already written in I. i ; the Eclogm
Proph. (? see below, p. 85) in I. 2 and 6; the Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms in IV. 15,
V. preface, 4, and 22 ; the Defense of Origen in VI. 23, 33, and 36 ; the Life of Pamphilus in
VI. 32, VII. 32, and VIII. 13. In VIII. 13 Eusebius speaks also of his intention of relating the
sufferings of the martyrs in another work (but see above, p. 30).
46 PROLEGOMENA.
§ 2. 77^1? Author's Design.
That the composition of a history of the Church was Eusebius' own idea, and was not due to
any suggestion from without, seems clear, both from the absence of reference to any one else as
prompting it, and from the lack of a dedication at the beginning of the work. The reasons which
led him to undertake its composition seem to have been both scientific and apologetic. He lived,
and he must have realized the fact, at the opening of a new age in the history of the Church.
He believed, as he frequently tells us, that the period of struggle had come to an end, and that
the Church was now about entering upon a new era of prosperity. He must have seen that it was
a peculiarly fitting time to put on record for the benefit of posterity the great events which had
taken place within the Church during the generations that were past, to sum up in one narrative
all the trials and triumphs which had now emerged in this final and greatest triumph, which he
was witnessing. He wrote, as any historian of the present day would write, for the information
and instruction of his contemporaries and of those who should come after, and yet there was in
his mind all the time the apologetic purpose, the desire to exhibit to the world the history of
Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy. The plan which he proposed to himself
is stated at the very beginning of his work : " It is my purpose to write an account of the succes-
sions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour
to our own ; and to relate how many and how important events are said to have occurred in the
history of the Church ; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church
in the most prominent parishes, and those who in eacli generation have proclaimed the divine
word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to give the names and the number and
the times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and pro-
claiming themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so-called, have, like fierce wolves, unmer-
cifully devastated the flock of Christ. It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes
which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our
Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the
Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in
the face of blood and tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days,
and finally the gracious and kindly succour which our Saviour afforded them all." It will be seer,
that Eusebius had a very comprehensive idea of what a history of the Church should comprise,
and that he was fully alive to its miportance.
§ 3. Eusehius as a Historian. The Merits and Defects of his History.
The whole Christian world has reason to be thankful that there lived at the opening of the
fourth century a man who, with his life spanning one of the greatest epochs that has occurred
in the history of the Church, with an intimate experimental knowledge of the old and of the new
condition of things, was able to conceive so grand a plan and possessed the means and the ability
to carry it out. Had he written nothing else, Eusebius' Church History would have made him
immortal ; for if immortality be a fitting reward for large and lasting services, few possess a clearer
title to it than the author of that work. The value of the History to us lies not in its literary
merit, but in the wealth of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early Church.
How many prominent figures of the first three centuries are known to us only from the pages of
Eusebius ; how many fragments, priceless on account of the light which they shed upon move-
ments of momentous and far-reaching consequence, have been preserved by him alone ; how
often a hint dropped, a casual statement made in passing, or the mention of some apparently
trifling event, gives the clue which enables us to unravel some perplexing labyrinth, or to fit into
one whole various disconnected and apparently unrelated elements, and thus to trace the steps
in the development of some important historical movement whose rise and whose bearing must
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 47
otherwise remain an unsolved riddle. The work reveals no sympathy with Ebionism, Gnosticism,
and Montanism, and little appreciation of their real nature, and yet our knowledge of their true
significance and of their place in history is due in considerable part to facts respecting the move-
ments or their leaders which Eusebius alone has recorded or preserved. To understand the
development of the Logos Christology we must comprehend the significance of the teaching of
Paul of Samosata, and how inadequate would our knowledge of the nature of that teaching be
without the epistle quoted in Book VII. chap. 30. How momentous were the consequences of the
paschal controversies, and how dark would they be were it not for the light shed upon them by
our author. How important, in spite of their tantalizing brevity and obscurity, the fragments
of Papias' writings : how interesting the extracts from the memoirs of Hegesippus ; how sugges-
tive the meager notices from Dionysius of Corinth, from Victor of Rome, from Melito, from Caius ;
how instructive the long and numerous quotations from the epistles of Dionysius of Alexandria !
He may often fail to appreciate the significance of the events which he records, he may in many
cases draw unwarranted conclusions from the premises which he states, he may sometimes misin-
terpret his documents and misunderstand men and movements, but in the majority of cases he
presents us with the material upon which to form our own judgments, and if we differ with him
we must at the same time thank him for the data which have enabled us independently to reach
other results.
But the value of Eusebius' Church History does not lie solely in the fact that it contains so
many original sources which would be otherwise unknown to us. It is not merely a thesaurus, it
is a history in the truest sense, and it possesses an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its
quotations from other works. Eusebius possessed extensive sources of knowledge no longer
accessible to us. His History contains the results of his extended perusal of many works which
are now irrecoverably lost, of his wide acquaintance with the current traditions of his day, of his
familiar intercourse with many of the chief men of the age. If we cut out all the documents
which he quotes, there still remains an extensive history whose loss would leave an irreparable
blank in our knowledge of the early Church. How invaluable, for instance, to mention but one
matter, are the researches of our author in regard to the circulation of the books of the New
Testament : his testimony to the condition of the canon in his own time, and to the more or less
widespread use of particular writings by the Fathers of preceding centuries. Great as is the
value of the sources which Eusebius quotes, those that he does not give are still more extensive,
and it is the knowledge gained from them which he has transmitted to us.
The worth of these portions of his History must depend in the first place upon the extent and
rehability of his sources, and in the second place upon the use which he made of them.
A glance at the list of his authorities given in the index, reveals at once the immense
range of his materials. The number of books which he either quotes or refers to as read is
enormous. When to these are added the works employed by him in the composition of his
PrcEp. Evang., as well as the great number which he must have perused, but does not mention,
we are amazed at the extent of his reading. He must have been a voracious reader from his
earliest years, and he must have possessed extraordinary acquisitive powers. It is safe to say
that there was among the Fathers, with the possible exception of Origen, no more learned man
than he. He thus possessed one of the primary qualifications of the historian. And yet even in
this respect he had his limitations. He seems to have taken no pains to acquaint himself with the
works of heretics, but to have been content to take his knowledge of them at second hand. And
still further, he was sadly ignorant of Latin literature and of the Latin Church in general (see
below, p. 106); in fact, we must not expect to glean from his History z. very thorough or extended
knowledge of western Christendom.
But his sources were not confined to literary productions. He had a wide acquaintance with
the world, and he was enabled to pick up much from his intercourse with other men and with
different peoples that he could not have found upon the shelves of the Caesarean or of any other
48 PROLEGOMENA.
library. Moreover, he had access to the archives of state, and gathered from them much informa-
tion quite inaccessible to most men. He was thus peculiarly fitted, both by nature and by cir-
cumstances, for the task of acquiring material, the first task of the genuine historian.
But the value of his work must depend in the second place upon the wisdom and honesty with
which he used his sources, and upon the faithfulness and accuracy with which he reproduced the
results thus reached. We are therefore led to enquire as to his qualifications for this part of his
work.
We notice, in the first place, that he was very diligent in the use of his sources. Nothing seems
to have escaped him that might in any way bear upon the particular subject in hand. When he
informs us that a certain author nowhere mentions a book or an event, he is, so far as I am
aware, never mistaken. When we realize how many works he read entirely through for the sake
of securing a single historical notice, and how many more he must have read without finding any-
thing to his purpose, we are impressed with his untiring diligence. To-day, with our convenient
indexes, and with the references at hand which have been made by many other men who have
studied the writings of the ancients, we hardly comprehend what an amount of labor the pro-
duction of a History like Eusebius' must have cost him, a pioneer in that kind of work.
In the second place, we are compelled to admire the sagacity which our author displays in the
selection of his materials. He possessed the true instinct of the historian, which enabled him to
pick out the salient points and to present to the reader just that information which he most
desires. We shall be surprised upon examining his work to see how little it contains which it is
not of the utmost importance for the student of early Church history to know, and how shrewdly
the author has anticipated most of the questions which such a student must ask. He saw what
it was in the history of the first three centuries of the Church which posterity would most desire
to know, and he told them. His wisdom in this respect is all the more remarkable when com-
pared with the unwisdom of most of his successors, who filled their works with legends of saints
and martyrs, which, however fascinating they may have been to the readers of that age, possess
little either of interest or of value for us. When he wishes to give us a glimpse of the persecu-
tions of those early days, his historical and literary instinct leads him to dwell especially upon two
thoroughly representative cases, — the martyrdom of Polycarp and the sufferings of the churches of
Lyons and Vienne, — and to preserve for posterity two of the noblest specimens of martyrological
literature which the ancient Church produced. It is true that he sometimes erred in his judg-
ment as to the wants of future readers ; we could wish that he had been somewhat fuller and
clearer on many points, and that he had not so entirely neglected some others ; but on the whole
I am of the opinion that few historical works, ancient or modern, have in the same compass
better fulfilled their mission in this respect.
In the third place, we can hardly fail to be impressed by the wisdom with which Eusebius
discriminated between reliable and unreliable sources. Judged by the modern standard he may
fall short as a literary critic, but judged by the standard of antiquity he must be given a very high
rank. Few indeed are the historians of ancient times, secular or ecclesiastical, who can compare
with Eusebius for sound judgment in this matter. The general freedom of his work from the
fables and prodigies, and other improbable or impossible tales which disfigure the pages of the
great majority even of the soberest of ancient historians, is one of its most marked features. He
shows himself uncommonly particular in demanding good evidence for the circumstances which
he records, and uncommonly shrewd in detecting spurious and unreliable sources. When we
remember the great number of pseudonymous works which were current in his day we are
compelled to admire his care and his discrimination. Not that he always succeeded in detecting
the false. More than once he was sadly at fault (as for instance in regard to the Abgarus corre-
spondence and Josephus' testimony to Christ), and has in consequence been severely denounced
or held up to unsparing ridicule by many modern writers. But the wonder certainly is not that
he erred as often as he did, but that he did not err oftener ; not that he was sometimes careless in
I
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 49
regard to the reliability of his sources, but that he was ever as careful as, in the majority of cases,
he has proved himself to be. In fact, comparing him with other writers of antiquity, we cannot
commend too highly the care and the skill with which he usually discriminated between the true
and the false.
In the fourth place, he deserves all praise for his constant sincerity and unfailing honesty. I
believe that emphasis should be laid upon this point for the reason that Eusebius' reputation ha ;
often suffered sadly in consequence of the unjust imputations, and the violent accusations, which
it was for a long time the fashion to make against him, and which lead many still to treat his
statements with distrust, and his character with contempt. Gibbon's estimate of his honesty i:i
well known and has been unquestioningly accepted in many quarters, but it is none the less
unjust, and in its implications quite untrue to the facts. Eusebius does dwell with greater fullness
upon the virtues than upon the vices of the early Church, upon its glory than upon its shame,
and he tells us directly that it is his intention so to do (^H. E. VIII. 2), but he never undertakes
to conceal the sins of the Christians, and the chapter immediately preceding contains a denun-
ciation of their corruptness and wickedness uttered in no faint terms. In fact, in the face of
these and other candid passages in his work, it is the sheerest injustice to charge him with dis-
honesty and unfairness because he prefers, as almost any Christian historian must, to dwell with
greater fullness of detail upon the bright than upon the dark side of the picture. Scientific,
Eusebius' method, in this respect, doubtless is not ; but dishonest, no one has a right to call it.
The most severe attack which has been made upon Eusebius in recent years is found in an article
by Jachmann (see below, p. 55). The evident animus which runs through his entire paper is
very unpleasant ; the conclusions which he draws are, to say the least, strained. I cannot enter
here into a consideration of his positions ; most of them are examined below in the notes upon
the various passages which he discusses. The whole article, like most similar attacks, proceeds
upon the supposition that our author is guilty, and then undertakes simply to find evidence
of that which is already presupposed. I submit that few writers could endure such an ordeal.
If Eusebius is tried according to the principles of common justice, and of sound literary criti-
cism, I am convinced, after long and careful study, that his sincerity and honesty of purpose
cannot be impeached. The particular instances which have been urged as proving his dishonesty
will be discussed below in the notes upon the respective passages, and to those the reader ij
referred (compare especially pp. 88, 98, 100, in, 112, 114, 127, 194).
Eusebius' critics are wont to condemn him severely for what they are pleased to call the
dishonesty displayed by him in his Vita Constantiiii. Such critics forget, apparently, that that
work pretends to be, not a history, but a panegyric. Judging it as such, I am unable to find
anything in it which leads me to entertain for a moment a suspicion of the author's honesty. It
is true that Eusebius emphasizes the Emperor's good qualities, and fails to mention the darker
spots in his character; but so far as I am aware he misstates no facts, and does only what
those who eulogize deceased friends are accustomed to do the world over. For a discussion
of this matter the reader is referred to the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, pp. 467 sq. of this
volume. I am pleased to learn from him that his study of the Vita has shown him nothing which
justifies the charge of dishonesty brought against Eusebius.
One of the most decisive marks of veracity upon the part of our author is the frankness with
which he confesses his lack of knowledge upon any subject (cf. IV. 5), and the care with which
he distinguishes between the different kinds of evidence upon which he bases his statements.
How frequently the phrases Xoyos l^u, <j>a(TL, Aeyerat, &c., occur in connection with accounts which
a less scrupulous historian would not hesitate to record as undoubted foct. How particular
he is to mention his sources for any unusual or startling event. If the authorities seem to him
quite inadequate, he simply omits all reference to an occurrence which most of his con-
temporaries and successors would have related with the greatest gusto ; if the testimony seems
to him strong, he records the circumstance and expressly mentions his authority, whether oral
VOL. 1. E
50 ' PROLEGOMENA.
tradition, the testimony of eye-witnesses, or written accounts, and we are thus furnished the
material from which to form our own judgments.
He - is often blamed by mqdern writers for what they are pleased to call his excessive
credulity. Those who accuse him thus seem to forget that he lived in the fourth, not in the
nineteenth century. That he believed many things which we now declare to be incredible is
perfectly true, but that he believed things that other Christians of his day pronounced incredible
is not true. Judged, in fact, according to the standard of his age — and indeed of eleven
succeeding centuries — he must be pronounced remarkably free from the foult of over-credulity,
in truth uncommonly skeptical in his attitude toward the marvelous. Not that he denies the
occurrence of prodigies and wonders in his own and other ages, but that he always demands the
strongest testimony before he allows himself to be convinced of their truth. Compare, e.g., the
care with which he gives his authorities for the anecdote in regard to the Thundering Legion
(V. 5), and his final suspension of judgment in the matter; compare also the emphasis which
he lays upon the personal testimony of the Emperor in the matter of the appearance of the sign
of the cross in the sky (/7/(Z Const. I. 28 sq.), a phenomenon which he himself tells us that he
would have believed upon no ordinary evidence. His conduct in this matter is a sign rather
of a skepticism uncommon in his age than of an excessive and unusual credulity. Cibbon
himself gives our author due credit in this respect, when he speaks of his character as " less
tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his
contemporaries " {^Decline and Fall, chap. XVL).
On the other hand, Eusebius as an historian had many very grave faults which it is not my
wish in the least to palliate or conceal. One of the most noticeable of these is his complete lack
of any conception of historiography as a fine art. His work is interesting and instructive because
of the facts which it records, but that interest is seldom if ever enhanced by his mode of presen-
tation. There is little effective grouping, almost no sense of perspective, utter ignorance of
the art of suggesting by a single line or phrase a finished picture of a man or of a movement.
He was not, in other words, a Thucydides or a Tacitus ; but the world has seen not many such
as they.
A second and still more serious fault is our author's want of depth, if I may so express myself,
his failure to look beneath the surface and to grasp the real significance of things, to trace the
influence of opinions and events. We feel this defect upon every page. We read the annals,
but we are conscious of no masterful mind behind them, digesting and comprehending them into
one organic and imposing whole. Tliis radical weakness in our author's method is revealed
perhaps most clearly in his superficial and transcendental treatment of heretics and heresies,
his failure to appreciate their origin and their bearing upon the progress of Christian thought.
Of a development in theology, in fact, he knows nothing, and hence his work lacks utterly
that which we now look upon as the most instructive part of Church history, — the history
of doctrine.
In the third place, severe censure must be passed upon our author for his carelessness and
inaccuracy in matters of chronology. We should expect that one who had produced the most
extensive chronological work that had ever been given to the world, would be thoroughly at
home in that province, but in truth his chronology is the most defective feature of his work.
The difficulty is chiefly due to his inexcusable carelessness, we might almost say slovenliness, in
the use of different and often contradictory sources of information. Instead of applying himself
to the discrepancies, and endeavoring to reach the truth by carefiilly weighing the respective
merits of the sources, or by testing their conclusions in so far as tests are possible, he adopts in
many cases the results of both, apparently quite unsuspicious of the confusion consequent upon
such a course. In fact, the critical spirit which actuates him in dealing with many other matters
seems to leave him entirely when he is concerned with chronology ; ami instead of proceeding with
the care and circumspection of an historian, he accepts what he finds with the unquestioning faith
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. '51
of a child. There is no case in which he can be convicted of disingenuousness, but at times his
obtuseness is ahnost beyond beUef. An identity- of names, or a resemblance between events
recorded by different authors, will often be enough to lead him all unconsciously to himself into
the most absurd and contradictory conclusions. Instances of this may be seen in Book I. chap,
5, and in II. 11. His confusion in regard to the various Antonines (see especially the note on the
preface to IJook V.) is not at all unusual among the writers of his day, and in view of the frecjuent
and perplexing use of the same names by the different emperors, might be quite excusable in a
less scholarly man than Eusebius, but in his case it is evidence of unpardonable want of care.
This serious defect in our author's method is not peculiar to him. Many historians, critical
almost to a fault in most matters, accept the received chronology without question, and build
upon it as if it were the surest of foundations. Such a consideration does not excuse Eusebius ;
it relieves him, however, of the stigma of pecuHarity.
Finally, the character of the History is greatly impaired by our author's desultory method.
This is a characteristic of his literary work in general, and was referred to in the previous
chapter. All his works are marred by it, but few suffer more noticeably than the Bis/oty.
The author does not confine himself as strictly as he should to the logical limits of the subject
which he is treating, but allows himself to be led away from the main point by the suggestions
that pour in upon him from all sides. As Lightfoot remarks, " We have not unfrequently to pick
out from various parts of his work the notices bearing on one definite and limited subject. He
relates a fact, or quotes an authority bearing upon it, in season or out of season, according, as
it is recalled to his memory by some accidental connexion." This unfortunate habit of Eusebius'
is one into which men of wide learning are very apt to fall. The richness of their acquisitions
embarrasses them, and the immense number of facts in their possession renders a comprehension
of them all into one logical whole very difficult ; and yet unless the facts be thus comprehended,
unless they be thoroughly digested and arranged, the result is confusion and obscurity. To
exclude is as necessary as to include, if one would write history with the highest measure •of
success ; to exclude rigidly at one time what it is just as necessary to include at another. To
men Hke Eusebius there is perhaps nothing more difficult than this. Only a mind as intensive
as it is extensive, with a grasp as strong as its reach is wide, can accomplish it, and few are the
minds that are blessed with both qualities. Few are the writers whose histories stand upon our
shelves that fail not sadly in the one or in the other ; and in few perhaps does the failure seem
more marked than in our author.
And yet, though it is apparent that the value of Eusebius' work is greatly impaired by its
desultory method of treatment, I am confident that the defect is commonly exaggerated. The
paragraph which Lightfoot quotes from Westcott on this subject leaves a false impression.
Altogether too often our author introduces irrelevant matters, and repeats himself when repetition
" mars the symmetry of his work " ; and yet on the whole he follows a fairly well ordered plan
with fairly good success. He endeavors to preserve a strictly chronological sequence in his
arrangement of the books, and he adheres for the most part to his purpose. Though there may
be disorder and confusion within the various periods, for instance within the apostolic age, the
age of Trajan, of Hadrian, of the Antonines, &c., yet the periods themselves are kept reasonably
distinct from one another, and having finished his account of one of them the author seldom
returns to it. Even in his treatment of the New Testament canon, which is especially desultory,
he says most of what he has to say about it in connection with the apostles themselves, and
before passing on to the second century. I would not overlook the exceeding flagrancy of his
desultoriness and repetitiousness in his accounts of the writings of many of the Fathers, especially
of the two Clements, and yet I would emphasize the fact that he certainly had an outlme plan
which he designed to follow, and for which due credit should be given him. He compares
favorably in this respect with at least most of the writers of antiquity. Only with our modern
method of dividing history into periods, separated by natural boundary lines, and of handling it
E 2
52
PROLEGOMENA.
under dearly defined rubrics, have we become able wholly to avoid the confused and illogical
treatment of Eusebius and of others like him.
§ 4. Editions and Versions.
The original Greek of Eusebius' History has been published in many editions.
1. The editio princeps is that of Robert Stephanus, which appeared at Paris in 1544, and
a"-ain, with a few changes, and with the Latin translation of Christophorsonus and the notes of
Suffridus Petrus, at Geneva in 16 12.
2. Henr. Valesius (de Valois) published his first edition of the Greek text, with a new Latin trans-
lation and with copious critical and explanatory notes, at Paris in 1659. His edition was reprinted
at Mainz in 1672, but the reprint is full of errors. In 1678, after Valesius' death, a revised
edition was issued at Paris, which in 1695 ^^^^ reprinted with some corrections at Amsterdam.
In 1720 Valesius' edition of Eusebius, together with his edition of Socrates, Sozomen, and the
other Greek historians, was republished at Cambridge by William Reading, in three folio volumes.
This is the best edition of Valesius, the commentary being supplemented by MS. notes which
he had left among his papers, and increased by large additions from other writers under the
head of Variorum. A reprint of Reading's edition was issued in 1 746-1 748, but according
to Heinichen it is not as accurate as that of 1720. For the elucidation of Eusebius' History
we owe more to Valesius than to any other man. His edition of the text was an immense advance
upon that of Stephanus, and has formed the basis of all subsequent editions, while his notes
are a perfect storehouse of information from which all annotators of Eusebius have extensively
drawn. Migne's edition {Opera, II. 45-906) is a reprint of Valesius' edition of 1659.
3. F. A. Stroth (Halle, 1779). A new edition of the Greek text, of which, however, only the
first volume appeared, comprising Books I.-VII.
4. E. Zimmermann (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1822). A new edition of the Greek text, con-
taining also the Latin translation of Valesius, and a few critical notes.
5. F. A. Heinichen (Leipzig, 1827 and 1828). An edition of the Greek text in three volumes,
with a reprint of the entire commentary of Valesius, and with the addition of Variorum notes. The
critical apparatus, printed in the third volume, is very meager. A few valuable excursuses close
the work. Forty years later Heinichen published a second edition of the History in his Eusebii
Pamphili Scripta Historica (Lips. 1868-18 70, 3 vols.). The first volume contains the Greek text
of the History, with valuable prolegomena, copious critical apparatus and very useful indices ; the
second volume contains the Vita Constantini, the Paitegyricus or De laudibus Constatiiini, and
Constantine's Oratio ad Sanctorum coetum, also accompanied with critical a])paratus and indices ;
the third volume contains an extensive commentary upon the works included in the first two
volumes, together with twenty-nine valuable excursuses. This entirely supersedes the first, and
is on the whole the most complete and useful edition of the History which we have. The editor
made diligent use of the labors of his predecessors, especially of Laemmer's. He did no inde-
pendent work, however, in the way of collecting material for the criticism of the text, and was
deficient in critical judgment. As a consequence his text has often to be amended on the basis
of the variant readings, which he gives with great fullness. His commentary is made up largely
of quotations from Valesius and other writers, and is valuable for the material it thus contains as
well as for its references to other works. It labors under the same incompleteness, however, that
mars Valesius' commentary, and, moreover, contains almost nothing of independent value.
6. Edward Burton, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, had jjrepared before
his death a Greek Text of the Ecclesiastical History, and this was issued by the Oxford
University Press in two volumes in 1838, with a very extensive critical apparatus appended
based upon that of Valesius. In 1842 the Oxford Press issued in two volumes, uniform with
Burton's edition of the text, the full notes of Valesius and Heinichen. These volumes have
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 53
no introduction or prefatory note, but it is understood that the editorial work was entrusted
to Mr. Osborne Gordon of Christ Church. The same Press also in 1845 issued in a single
volume for the use of students, and again, in 1856, Burton's text alone, without the critical
apparatus. Burton made large contributions to the criticism of the text, and had he lived to
superintend the issue of these successive editions, would perhaps have succeeded in giving us
a better text than any which we now possess, for he was a far more sagacious critic than
Heinichen. As it is, his edition is marred by numerous imperfections, largely caused by the
inaccuracy of those who collated MSS. for him. His text, however, has been reprinted at
Oxford, first in 1872, and again in 1881, under the careful supervision of Canon Bright, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History. The typography of these reprints is superb, and
the admirable plan is followed of discarding quotation marks and printing all citations in
smaller type, thus making plain to the eye at a glance what is Eusebius' own and what is
another's. The text is preceded by a very interesting and graphic life of the historian. This
is a very handy edition, and for school use is unsurpassed.
7. Schwegler (Tubingen, 1852, in one volume). The Greek text with critical apparatus, but
without translation and notes. An accurate and useful edition.
8. Laemmer (Schaffhausen, 1859-1S62). The Greek text in one volume, with extensive
critical apparatus, but without explanatory notes. Laemmer had unusual opportunities for col-
lecting material, and has made larger additions to the critical apparatus than any one else. His
edition was issued, however, in a most slovenly manner, and swarms with mistakes. Great care
should therefore be exercised in the use of it.
9. Finally must be mentioned the text of Dindorf (Lips. 1871), which is published in the
Teubner series, and like most of the volumes of that series is handy and convenient, but of little
value to the critical student.
There are few writings of the Fathers which more sadly need and more richly deserve a new
critical edition than the History of Eusebius. The material for the formation of a reliable text is
extensive and accessible, but editors have contented themselves too much in the past with the
results of their predecessors' labors, and unfortunately those labors have not always been accurate
and thorough. As a consequence a new and more careful collation of most of the MSS. of the
original, together with those of Rufinus' translation, must lie at the foundation of any new work
which is to be done in this line. The publication of the Syriac version will doubtless furnish much
valuable material which the next editor of the History will be able to use to advantage. Anything
less than such a thorough work as I have indicated will be of little worth. Unless the new edition
be based upon extensive and independent labors, it will be little if any improvement upon
that of Heinichen. It is to be hoped that a critical text, up to the standard of those of some
other patristic works which we already possess, may yet be issued, which shall give us this, one
of the noblest productions of the ancient Church, in a fitting and satisfactory form.
Translations of Eusebius' History are very numerous. Probably the earliest of all is the ancient
Syriac version which is preserved in great part in two MSS., one of which is at St. Petersburg and
contains the entire History with the exception of Book VI. and large portions of Books V. and
VII. The MS. is dated 462 a.d. (see Wright's description of it in his Catalogue of the Syriac
MSS. in the British Mitsetini acquired since the year 1838, Part HI. p. xv. sq.). The second
MS. is in the British Museum, and contains Books I.-V., with some mutilations at the beginning
of the first book. The MS. dates from the sixth century (see Wright's description of it in his
Catalogue, p. 1039). From these MSS. Wright was engaged in preparing an edition of the Syriac,
which remained unfinished at the time of his death. Whether he left his work in such shape that
it can soon be issued by some one else I have not yet learned. The version was probably made
at a very early date, possibly within the lifetime of Eusebius himself, though of that we can have
no assurance. I understand that it confirms m the main the Greek text as now printed in our
best editions.
iH
PROLEGOIVIENA.
The original Latin version was made by Rufinus in the early years of the fifth century. He
translated only nine books, and added to them two of his own, in which he brought the history
down to the death of Theodosius the Great. He allowed himself his customary license in trans-
, lating, and yet, although his version is by no means exact, it is one of our best sources for a
knowledge of the true text of Eusebius, for it is possible, in many doubtful cases where our MSS.
are hopelessly divided, to ascertain from his rendering what stood in the original Greek.
The version of Rufinus had a large circulation, and became in the Western Church a substitute
for the original throughout the Middle Ages. It was first printed, according to P\ibricius
{ib. p. 59), in 1476 at Rome, afterward a great many times there and elsewhere ^ The first
critical edition, which still remains the best, is that of Cacciari (Rome, 1740), which has become
rare, and is very difficult to find. A new edition is a great desideratum. An important work
upon Rufinus' version is Kimmel's De Rufino Euscbii Inierprcte, Gerse, 1838.
A new Latin translation, by Wolfgang Musculus, was published in Basle, in 1549, and again
in 1557, 1562, and 161 1, according to Fabricius (^Blbl. Gr. VL p. 60). I have myself seen only
the edition of 1562.
Still another Latin version, from the hand of Christophorsonus, was published at Louvain in
1569. This is the only edition of Christophorsonus which I have seen, but I have notices of
Cologne editions of 1570, 1581 and 1612, and of a Paris edition of 1571. According to Fabri-
cius the Paris edition, and according to Brunet the Cologne edition of 158 1, contain the notes of
Suffridus Petrus. A revision of Christophorsonus' version is said by Cruse to have been published
by Curterius, btit I have not seen it, nor am I aware of its date.
A later edition of the series of the Church Historians was edited byGrynaeus, and apparently
was first published at Basle in 161 1=. According to the title-page it was 'latine . . . partim
scripta, partim e grseco, . . . W. Musculo 3, J. Camerario, et J. Christophorsono conversa, et per
J. J. Grynoeum illustrata.' From this Gryngeus has been credited with making a new translation
of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, which forms one of the series contained in the volume.
The translation of Valesius, which was first published in 1659 (See anle, p. 52), was a great
improvement upon all that had preceded it, and has been many times reprinted in other
editions of Eusebius as well as in his own.
The first German translation was published by Caspar Hedio. The earliest edition
which has been noticed (and a copy may be seen in the British Museum) is dated 1530.
Later editions of 1545 and 1558 are preserved there. But the copy I have seen
is dated 1582, and it comprises only nine books of Eusebius, supplemented by the two
of Rufinus. The title runs as follows : Chronica, das ist : waJu-haffige Beschreibunge allcr alien
Christlichen Kirchen ; zum ersten, die hist, eccks. Eusebii Pamphili Cssariensis, Eilff Biicher;
zurn andern, die hist, eccks. tripartita Sozomeni, Socratis und Theodoreti, Zwolff Biicher ; zum
dritten die hist, eccks. sampt andern treffenHchen Geschichten, die zuvor in Teutscher Sprache
wenig gelesen sind, auch Zwolff Biicher. Von der Zeit an da die hist, eccks. tripartita auf horet :
das ist, von der jarzal an, vierhundert nach Christi geburt, biss auff das jar MDXLV, durch
D. Caspar Hedion zu Strassburg verteutscht und zusamen getragen. Getruckt zu Franckfurt am
Mayn, im jar 1582.
' A copy consisting of 128 leaves, double column, with 40 lines
to a column, printed in Gothic letter, apparently by H. Eggesteyn.
at Str.isburg, but without date, is to be seen in the liritish Museum,
and is ascribed in their catalogue to 1473. Brunet and others men-
tion an edition consisting of 204 leaves, with 31 lines to a page,
printed with the type of Nicolas Ketelaer and Gerard de Leonipt
at Utrecht, dated 1474. The edition printed at Rome (of which
a copy is in the liritish Museum), ends witli folio 218, and has for
the colophon. " Millesimo ccccLxxvi. Die xv Maii. P.M. Sixti
quarti ; anno ejus quinto completum est hoc opus Rome." The
next known edition, of which three copies are to be found in the
liritish Museum, consists of 171 leaves, and is printed at Mantua
by J. Schallus in 1479. Editions of 1490 at Speyer ; of 1497 at
Paris; and (apparently) two of 1500 at Strasburg, may also be
mentioned.
= HofTinan, however, gives an earlier edition, edited byGrynaeus,
as printed at liaslc in 1570; but no confirmatory tvidcnci; has
been observed.
3 The mention of the name of Musculus here in the title-page is
probably the authority fur Fabricius noting an edition by Musculus
in 1611.
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.
53
A second German translation of the entire History (with the exception of llie Martyrs of
Palestine, and the Oration on the Building of the Churches, X. 4), together with the Life of
Consfaniiuc, was piiblished by F. A. Stroth in Quedlinburg in 1777, in two volumes. Stroth
prefaced the translation with a very valuable life of Eusebius, and added a number of excellent
notes of his own. The translation is reasonably accurate.
A much more elegant German version (including the Oration, but omitting the Martyrs of
Palestine') was published by Gloss in Stuttgart in 1839, in one volume. This is in my opinion
the best translation of the History that exists. Its style is admirable, but pure German idiom is
sometimes secured at the expense of faithfulness. In fact the author has aimed to produce a
free, rather than a literal translation, and has occasionally allowed himself to depart too far
from the original. A few brief notes, most of them taken from Valesius or Stroth, accompany
the translation.
More recently a German translation has been published by Stigloher (Kempten, 1880) in the
Kempten Bibliothek dcr Kirchenvater. It purports to be a new translation, but is practically
nothing more than a poorly revised edition of Gloss' version. The changes which are made are
seldom improvements.
Fabricius mentions a French translation by Claudius Seysselius, but does not give the date of
it, and I have not myself seen it. Dr. Richardson, however, informs me that he has a copy of
this translation (which is from the Latin, not from the Greek) bearing the following title : LPIis-
toire ecclesiastique translatce de Latin en Francois, par M. Claude de Seyssel, evesque lors de Mar-
seille, et depiiii archcvesque de Thurin. Paris, 1532 [or 'zz\,fol.^ He informs me also that
there exist editions of the years 1537 and 1567.
More than a century later appeared a new French translation by Louis Cousin, bearing the
following title : Histoire de r Eglise ecrite par Eusebe de Cesarce, Socrate, Sozomene, Theodoret
et Evagre, avec Vabrcge dc Pliilostorge par Photius, et de Theodore par Nicephore Calliste. Paris,
1675-1676. 4 vol. 4°. Another edition appeared in Holland in 1686, 5 vol. 12°.
A Dutch edition with the title, " Die Historic diemen heet Ecclesiastica .... overghesedt
in onser duytscher spraken," was issued by " Gouaert van der Haghen, Tantwerpen, 1534."
Another Dutch edition, by Abr, Arent van der Meersch, was also published in 410. at Amster-
dam in 1749.
The first Italian translation seems to have been made by Bened. Egione, and to have been
printed at Venice by Michele Tramezzino in 1547.
The first English translation bore the title, " The Auncient Ecclesiasticall Histories of the
first six hundred years after Christ All which authors are faithfully translated out of the
Greeke tongue by M. Hanmer." The first edition was issued by T. Vautrollier, London, fol.,
1577. The next 1585, by the same. The third edition, 'corrected cind amended,' was issued
by R. Field, London, 1607 ; while another edition, from the same publisher, bears the date of
1 61 9. The fourth edition 'corrected' (to which was added the life of Constantine, translated
by Wye Saltonstall) was issued in parts by G. Miller in 16365. A fifth edition appeared in
1650, and a sixth revised, corrected and enlarged in 1663.
The above translations, considerably revised, were republished at Cambridge by John
Hayes in 1683^. The book bore the title of "The History of the Church from our Lord's
Incarnation to the twelfth year of the Emperor Mauricius Tiberius .... as it is written in Greek
by Eusebius Socrates Scholasticus .... and Evagrius Scholasticus. Made English from that
edition of those historians which Valesius published at Paris in the years 1659, 1668, and
4 According to the copies in the British Museum it would
appear that an edition with the above title was published by Geofroy
Tory at Bruges, in one vol. folio, 1532, and another edition at
Antwerp in 1533. Also in the same year, 1553, another edition
was printed in Paris.
5 Each part has a distinct title-page, but pagination ot Pts. 1— 4
is continuous. Part 5 has a distinct pagination, and a title-page
bearing the date of 1637.
6 This seems to be the translation referred to by Cruse as by
T. Shorting.
56
PROLEGOMENA.
1673, &c. Also the life of Constantine, &c." This was reprinted at Cambridge in 1692,
and later 011 in London, with several additions relating especially to the Geography in 1709.
An abridged translation of the Ecclesiastical History appeared in 1703, the translator being
Samuel Parker, son of Samuel Parker, Bishop of Oxford in King James II.'s reign ?. The
edition was reprinted in 1720, in 3 vols. 8vo., and again in 1729 in 4to. To the two
later editions was prefixed a dissertation concerning the use and authority of Ecclesiastical
History by C. Lesly, and to the third an abridged translation, by another hand, of Evagrius.
The latest English translation was made by the Rev. C. F. Cruse, an American Episcopalian
of German descent, and was published first in Philadelphia in 1S33, with a translation, by Parker,
of Valesius' Life of Eusebius prefixed. It has been reprinted a great many times both in Eng-
land and America, and is included in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library. In Bohn's edition are
printed a few scattered notes from Valesius' commentary, and in some other editions an historical
account of the Council of Nicsea, by Isaac Boyle, is added. The translation is an improvement
upon its predecessors, but is nevertheless very faulty and unsatisfactory. The translator is not
thoroughly at home in the English, and, moreover, his version is marred by many serious omis-
sions and interpolations which reveal an inexcusable degree of carelessness on his part.
§ 5. Literature.
The literature upon Eusebius' History is very extensive. Many of the editions already
mentioned discuss, in their prolegomena, the History itself and Eusebius' character as a historian,
as do also all the lives of Eusebius referred to above, and all the larger histories of the Church.
In addition to these we have numerous important monographs and essays, of which the following
may be mentioned here: Moller, de Fide Eiisehii iti rebus christianis enarrandis, Havn. 18 13;
Danz, de Eusehio Ccesariensi Hist. EcclesiasticcB Scriptore, Jenee, 1815. This was mentioned in
Chapter I. as containing a valuable discussion of the hfe of Eusebius. Its chief importance lies
in its treatment of the sources of the Cliurch History, to which the author devotes the whole of
Chap. III. which bears the title, de fontibus, quibus usus, historiam ecclesiasticam conscripsit
Eusebius, pp. 76-144. Kestner, de Eusebii Historic^ Eccles. conditoris auctoritate, et fide
diplomatica, sive de ejus Fontibus et Ratione qua eis usus est, Gottingae, 1816 ; and by the same
author, Ueber die Einseitigkeit icnd Partheiligkeit des Eusebius als Geschichtsdu-eibers, Jens, 1819 ;
Reuterdahl, de Fontibus Historic^ Eccles. Eusebiance, Londini Gothorum, 1826; Reinstra, itV
Fontibus, ex quibus Histories Eccles. opus hausit Eusebius Pamphili, et de Ratione, qua lis usus
est, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1833 ; F. C. Baur, Comparatur Eusebius Histories Eccles. Parens cum
Parente HistoricB Herodoto, Tub. 1834; and pp. 9-26 of the same author's Epochen der
kirchlichen Geschiciitschreibung, Tub. 1852; Dowling, Litroduction to the Critical Study of
Eccles. History, London, 1838, pp. 11-18; Hely, Eusebe de Cesaree, premier Historien de
I'Eglise., Paris, 1877; J. Burckhardt, Zeit Constantins, 2d ed. 1880, pp. 307 sq. Burckhardt
depreciates Eusebius' value and questions his veracity. The review articles that have been writ-
ten on Eusebius' History are legion. I shall mention only Engelhardt's Eusebius als Kirchen-
geschichtschreiber, in the Zeitschrift filr hist. Theol. 1852, pp. 652-657; and Jachmann's
Bemerkungen iiber die Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius, ib. 1839, II. pp. 10-60. The latter con-
tains one of the most unsparing attacks upon Eusebius' honesty that has ever been made (see
above, p. 49).
7 The translator, it may be added, was the father of Sackville
Parker, who was founder of the bookselling business in Oxford
bearing that name, and great grandfather of John Henry Parker,
the publisher of the Oxford Library of the Fathers, whosc son
and grandson are the Knglish publishers of this present series of
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS IN FAVOR OF
EUSEBIUS/
From Constaiitine's Letter to the Antiochians (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III.
chap. 60).
" I confess, then, that on reading your records I perceived, by the highly eulogistic testimony
which they bear to Eusebius, bishop of Csesarea (whom I have myself long well known and
esteemed for his learning and moderation), that you are strongly attached to him and desire to
appropriate him as your own prelate. What thoughts then do you suppose that I entertain on
this subject, desirous as I am to seek for and act on the strict principles of right? What anxiety
do you imagine this desire of yours has caused me ? O holy faith, who givest us in our Saviour's
words and precepts a model, as it were, of what our life should be, how hardly wouldst thou
thyself resist the course of sin were it not that thou refusest to subserve the purposes of gain !
In my own judgment, he whose first object is the maintenance of peace seems to be superior to
Victory herself; and where a right and honorable course hes open to one's choice, surely no one
would hesitate to adopt it. I ask then, brethren, why do we so decide as to inflict an injury
on others by our choice? Why do we covet those objects which will destroy the credit of our
own character? I myself highly esteem the individual whom ye judge worthy of your respect
and affection ; notwithstanding, it cannot be right that those principles should be entirely disre-
garded which should be authoritative and binding on all alike ; for example, that each should be
content with the limits assigned them, and that all should enjoy their proper privileges ; nor can
it be right in considering the claims of rival candidates to suppose but that not one only, but many,
may appear worthy of comparison with this person. For as long as no violence or harshness
are suffered to disturb the dignities of the Church, they continue to be on an equal footing, and
worthy of the same consideration everywhere. Nor is it reasonable that an enquiry into the
qualifications of one person should be made to the detriment of others ; since the judgment of
all churches, whether reckoned of greater importance in themselves, is equally capable of receiving
and maintaining the divine ordinances, so that one is in no way inferior to another (if we will but
boldly declare the truth), in regard to that standard of practice which is common to all. If this
be so, we must say that you will be chargeable, not with retaining this prelate, but with wrongfully
removing him ; your conduct will be characterized rather by violence than justice ; and whatever
may be generally thought by others, I dare clearly and boldly affirm that this measure will furnish
ground of accusation against you, and will provoke factious disturbances of the most mischievous
kind ; for even timid flocks can show the use and power of their teeth when the watchful care
of their shepherd decHnes, and they find themselves bereft of his accustomed guidance. If this
then be really so, if I am not deceived in my judgment, let this, brethren, be your first considera-
tion (for many and important considerations will immediately present themselves, if you adopt
my advice) , whether, should you persist in your intention, that mutual kindly feeling and affection
which should subsist among you will suffer no diminution? In the next place remember that
Eusebius, who came among you for the purpose of offering disinterested counsel, now enjoys the
reward which is due to him in the judgment of heaven ; for he has received no ordinary recom-
pense in the high testimony you have borne to his equitable conduct. Lastly, in accordance with
your usual sound judgment, do ye exhibit a becoming diligence in selecting the person of whom
you stand in need, carefully avoiding all factious and tumultuous clamor : for such clamor is
always wrong, and from the collision of discordant elements both sparks and flame will arise."
for this edition, with the exception of the quotations from the Life
of Constantine, and from the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, —
Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius, — which have been
copied, with a few necessary corrections, from the version found in
Bagster's edition of the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians. The
translation has been made at my request by Mr. James McDon-
ald, of Shelbyville, Ky., a member of the senior class (1890) of Lane
Theological beminary.
1 The following Testimonies of the Ancients were collected by
Valesius, and are printed in the original languages in his edition of
Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, at the close of his Vita Eusebii.
The order of Valesius has been preserved in the following pages,
but occasionally a passage, for the sake of greater clearness, has
been given more fully than by him. A few extracts have been
omitted (as noted below), and one or two, overlooked by him, have
been added. The e.\tracts have all been translated from the original
58 PROLEGOMENA.
From the Emperor's Letter to Euscbius (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. 6i).
" I have most carefully perused your letter, and perceive that you have strictly conformed to
the rule enjoined by the discipline of the Church. Now to abide by that which appears at the
same time pleasing to God, and accordant with apostolic tradition, is a proof of true piety : and
you have reason to deem yourself happy on this behalf, that you are counted worthy, in the judg-
ment, I may say, of all the world, to have the oversight of the whole Church. For the desire
which all feel to claim you for their own, undoubtedly enhances your enviable fortune in this
respect. Notwithstanding, your Prudence, whose resolve it is to observe the ordinances of God
and the apostolic rule of the Church, has done excellently well in declining the bishopric of the
Church at Antioch, and desiring to continue in that Church of which you first received the over-
sight by the will of God."
From Constajitine's Letter to the Council (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. 62).
" I have perused the letters written by your Prudences, and highly approve of the wise resolu-
tion of your colleague in the ministry, Eusebius. Having, moreover, been informed of the cir-
cumstances of the case, partly by your letters, partly by those of our illustrious friends Acacius
and Strategius, after sufficient investigation I have written to the people at Antioch, suggesting the
course which will be at once pleasing to God and advantageous for the Church. A copy of this I
have ordered to be subjoined to this present letter, in order that ye yourselves may know what
I thought fit, as an advocate of the cause of justice, to write to that people : since I find in your
letter this proposal, that, in consonance with the choice of the people, sanctioned by your own
desire, Eusebius the holy bishop of Caesarea should preside over and take the charge of the
Church at Antioch. Now the letters of Eusebius himself on this subject appeared to be strictly
accordant with the order prescribed by the Church."
From a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book IV. chap. 35).
" It is indeed an arduous task, and beyond the power of language itself, worthily to treat of
the mysteries of Christ, and to explain in a fitting manner the controversy respecting the feast of
Easter, its origin as well as its precious and toilsome accomplishment. For it is not in the power
even of those who are able to apprehend them, adequately to describe the things of God. I am,
notwithstanding, filled with admiration of your learning and zeal, and have not only myself read
your work with pleasure, but have given directions, according to your own desire, that it be com-
municated to many sincere followers of our holy religion. Seeing, then, with what pleasure we
receive favors of this kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden us more frequently with
those compositions, to the practice of which, indeed, you confess yourself to have been trained
from an early period, so that I am urging a willing man (as they say), in exhorting you to your
customary pursuits. And certainly the high and confident judgment we entertain is a proof that
the person who has translated your writings into the Latin tongue is in no respect incompetent to
the task, impossible though it be that such version should fully equal the excellence of the works
themselves."
From a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book IV. chap. 36).
" It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have
united themselves to the most holy Church in the city which is called by my name. It seems,
therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects,
that the number of Churches should also be increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all readi-
ness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to
order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures (the provision and use of which you know to be most
needful for the instruction of the Church) to be written on prepared parchment in a legible man-
ner, and in a commodious and portable form, by transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art.
The procurator of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be
careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies ; and it will be for you
to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible. You have authority
also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which
arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspec-
tion ; and one of the deacons of your Church may be intrusted with this service, who, on his
arrival here, shall experience my liberality. God preserve you, beloved brother ! "
TESTIMONIES IN FAVOR OF EUSEBIUS. 59
From the Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to Faulinus, Bishop of Tyre (given by Thcodorct in
his Eccles. Hist, I. 6).
" Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius concerning the truth, nor tliy silence in this matter
been unknown, but has reached even us. And, as was fitting, on the one hand we iiave rejoiced
on account of my lord Eusebius ; but on the other, we are grieved on thy account, since we look
upon the silence of such a man as a condemnation of our cause."
From the Book of Basil, to Amphilochius, on the Holy Spirit (chap. 29).
" If to any one Eusebius of Palestine seem trustworthy on account of his great experience, we
give his own words in the Diffictilties concerning the Polygamy of the Ancients. ^^
From the Book of Questions on the Old and New Testaments, which is published among the Works
of Augustine (chap. 125).
" We remember to have read in a certain pamphlet of Eusebius, a man formerly distinguished
among the rest of men, that not even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the nativity of our
Lord Jesus Christ ; and I wonder that a man of so great learning should have imposed this stigma
upon the Holy Spirit."
From Jerome' s Epistle to Panimachius and Oceanus {Ep. 65).
" Apollinarius wrote the very strongest books against Porphyry ; Eusebius has excellently
composed his Ecclesiastical History. Of these men, one taught an incomplete human nature
in Christ ; the other was a most open defender of the heresy of Arius."
From the Apology of Jerome against Rufinus (Book I. chap. 8).
" As I have already said, Eusebius, bishop of Csesarea, formerly leader of the Arian party, has
written six books in defense of Origen — a very extensive and elaborate work ; with much evi-
dence he has proved that Origen was, from his point of view, a Catholic, that is, from ours, an
Arian."
From the same book (chap. 9).
'' For Eusebius himself, a friend, eulogist and companion of Pamphilus, has written three very
elegant books comprising a life of Pamphilus. In these, after extolling other things with wondrous
praises and exalting his humility to the skies, he also adds this in the third book," &c.
And a little farther on in the same book (chap. 11).
" I have praised Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, in his Chronological Canons, in his
Description of the Holy Land; and turning these same little works into Latin I have given them
to those of my own tongue. Am I therefore an Arian, because Eusebius who wrote these books
is an Arian?"
From Jerome's second book against Rufinns (chap. 16).
" Eusebius, a very learned man (I have said learned, not Catholic ; lest after the usual man-
ner, even in this thing, thou heap calumny upon me), in six volumes does nothing else than show
Origen to be of his own faith ; that is, of the Arian heresy."
From the Preface of Jerome' s Book on Hebrew Topography.
" Eusebius, who took his surname from the blessed martyr Pamphilus, after the ten books of
his Ecclesiastical History, after his Chronological Canons, which we have published in the Latin
tongue, after his Names of Vai-ious Nations, in which he showed how these were formerly, and
are now, called among the Hebrews ; after his Topography of the Land of Judca, with the inheri-
tances of the tribes ; after his Jerusalem, also, and his Plan of the Temple, with a very brief expla-
nation, — after all these he has finally in this litde work labored that he might collect for us from
Holy Scripture the names of almost all the cities, mountains, rivers, villages, and divers places,
which either remain the same, or have since been changed, or else have become corrupted
from some source, wherefore we also, following the zeal of this admirable man," &c. >
6o PROLEGOMENA.
From Jerome's Book on Ecclesiastical Writers (chap. 6 1 ) .
" Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (I have not indeed been able to find out the name of
the city) , wrote a reckoning of Easter, and chronological tables up to the first year of the Emperor
Alexander, and hit upon a cycle of sixteen years which the Greeks call eKKatSeKacTT/ptSa ; and gave
an occasion to Eusebius, who also composed an Easter canon, with a cycle of nineteen years, that
is cvreaSeKaeTT^/jtSa."
From the same book (chap. 8i).
"Eusebius, bishop of Coesarea in Palestine, a man most studious in the sacred Scriptures,
and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most diligent investigator of sacred literature, has edited
an infinite number of volumes, some of which are these : of the Dcmonstratio Evangelica, twenty
books ; of the Pneparatio Evangelica, fifteen books ; of the Theophania, five books ) of the
Ecclesiastical History, ten books ; a General History in Chronological Tables, and an Epitome
of them; also, On the Discrepancies of the Gospels; On Isaiah, ten books ; zwA Against Porphyry
(who at the same time was writing in Sicily, as some think), thirty books, of which only twenty
have come to my notice ; of his Topica, one book ; of the Apologia, in defense of Origen, six
books ; On the Life of Pamphilus, three books ; Concerning the APartyrs, other small works ;
also very learned commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms, and many other writings. He
flourished chiefly under the emperors Constantine and Constantius ; and on account of his friend-
ship with Pamphilus the martyr, he took from him his surname."
From the same book (chap. 96).
*' Eusebius, by nation a Sardinian, and, after being reader in Rome, bishop of Vercellae, on ac-
count of his confession of the faith banished by the Prince Constantius to Scythopolis, and thence
to Cappadocia, under Julian the emperor sent back to the Church, has published the Cojumcn-
taries on the Psalms of Eusebius of Csesarea, which he had translated from Greek into Latin."
Jerome in the Preface to his Commentaries on Daniel.
" Against the prophet Daniel Porphyry wrote a twelfth volume, denying that that book was
composed by him with whose name it is inscribed, &c. To him Eusebius, bishop of Csesarea,
has replied very skillfully in three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and XX. Apol-
linarius also in one large volume, that is, in the twenty-sixth volume, and before these, in part,
Methodius."
Jerome on the Twentyjourth Chapter of Matthew.
" Concerning this place, that is, concerning the abomination of desolation which was spoken
of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place. Porphyry has uttered many blasphemies
against us in the thirteenth volume of his work. To whom Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, has
replied in three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIIL, XIX., and XX."
The same, in his Epistle to Magnus {Ep. 84) .
" Celsus and Porphyry have written against us. To the former Origen, to the latter Metho-
dius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius have very vigorously replied. Of whom Origen wrote eight
books, Methodius proceeded as far as ten thousand lines, Eusebius and Apollinarius composed
twenty-five and thirty volumes respectively."
The same, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus {Ep. 65).
"What more skillful, more learned, more eloquent men can be found than Eusebius and
Didymus, the advocates of Origen? The former of whom, in the six volumes of his Apologia,
proves that he [Origen] was of the same opinion as himself."
Jerome, in the Preface to his Commentaries on Isaiah.
, " Eusebius Pamphili also has published an historical commentary in fifteen volumes."
The same, in the Preface to the Fifth Book of his Commentaries on Isaiah.
" Shall I take upon myself a work at which the most learned men have labored hard ? I speak
of Origen and Eusebius Pamphili. Of these the former wanders afar in the free spaces of alle-
TESTIMONIES IN FAVOR OF EUSEBIUS. 6l
gory, and his genius so interprets single names as to make out of them the sacred things of the
Church. The latter, while promising in his title an historical exposition, meanwhile forgets his
purpose, and yields. himself up to the tenets of Origen."
The same, in the fifth book of his Cofumentaries on Isaiah.
" Eusebius of Caesarea, while promising in his title an historical exposition, strays off in divers
notions : while reading his books I found much else than what he gave promise of in his title.
For wherever history has failed him, he has crossed over into allegory; and in such a manner
does he unite things that are distinct, that I wonder at his joining together by a new art of dis-
course stone and iron into one body."
y^erome on the first chapter of Matthew.
" This [chapter] also Africanus, a writer of chronology, and Eusebius of Caesarea, in his
books on the Discrepancies of the Gospels, have discussed more fully."
Rufimis in his Epistle to the Bishop Chromatins.
" You charge me to translate into Latin the Ecclesiastical History, which the very learned
Eusebius of Cajsarea wrote in the Greek tongue."
Angustine, in his Book on Heresies (chap. 83).
" When I had searched through the History of Eusebius, to which Rufinus, after having him-
self translated it into the Latin tongue, has also added two books of subsequent history, I did
not find any heresy which I had not read among these very ones, except that one which Eusebius
inserts in his sixth book, stating that it had existed in Arabia. Therefore these heretics, since he
assigns them no founder, we may call Arabians, who declared that the soul dies and is destroyed
along with the body, and that at the end of the world both are raised again. But he states that
they were very quickly corrected, these by the disputation of Origen in person, and those by his
exhortation."
Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against Eusebius of CcBsarea's Apology for Origen.
" Since now this man was very learned, having searched out and traced back all the books
and writings of the more ancient writers, and having set forth the opinions of almost all of them,
and having left behind very many writings, some of which are worthy of all acceptation, making
use of such an estimation as this of the man, they attempt to lead away some, saying, that Euse-
bius would not have chosen to take this view, unless he had accurately ascertained that all the
opinions of the ancients required it. I, indeed, agree and admit that the man was very learned,
and that not anything of the more ancient writings escaped his knowledge ; for, taking advantage
of the imperial co-operation, he was enabled easily to collect for his use material from whatever
quarter."
From the First Book of Extracts from the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius.
" Philostorgius, while praising Eusebius Pamphili both as to whatever of worth belongs to his
histories and as to other things, yet declares that with regard to religion he has fallen into great
error ; and that he impiously sets forth this error of his in detail, holding that the Deity is
unknowable and incomprehensible. Moreover, he holds that he has also gone astray on other
such things. But he unites with others in attesting that he brought his History down to the acces-
sion of the sons of Constantine the Great."
Socrates in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap, i ) .
"Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus (i.e. universally beloved), has composed a History of the
Church in ten books, brought down to the time of the Emperor Constantine, when the persecu-
tion ceased which Diocletian had commenced against the Christians. But, in writing the life of
Constantine, this author has very slightly treated of the Arian controversy, being evidently more
intent on a highly wrought eulogium of the emperor than an accurate statement of facts."
62 PROLEGOMENA.
The same Socrates in the Eif:;JitJi Chapter of the same Book, speaking of Sabiniis, Bishop of
Macedonia, icho had written a History of the Synod, says : —
" Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a witness worthy of credit, and praises the Emperor
as capable in stating Christian doctrines ; but he still brands the faith which was declared at Nice
as having been set forth by ignorant men, and such as had no intelligence in the matter. Thus
he voluntarily contemns the testimony of a man whom he himself pronounces a wise and true wit-
ness ; for Eusebius declares that of the ministers of God who were present at the Nicene Synod,
some were eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the strictness of their life ; and that the
lunperor himself being present, leading all into unanimity, established unity of judgment, and
conformity of opinion among them."
The safne Socrates, in Book II. chap. 21.
" But since some have attempted to stigmatize Eusebius Pamphilus as having favored the Arian
views in his works, it may not be irrelevant here to make a few remarks respecting him. In the
first place, then, he was present at the council of Nice, and gave his assent to what was there
determined in reference to the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and in the third book
of the Life of Constantine, he thus expressed himself : ' The Emperor incited all to unanimity, until
he had rendered them united in judgment on those points on which they wej-e previously at variance :
so that they weir quite agreed at Nice in matters of fait] l.'' Since, therefore, Eusebius, in men-
tioning the Nicene Synod, says that all differences were composed, and that unanimity of senti-
ment prevailed, what ground is there for assuming that he was himself an Arian ? The Arians are
certainly deceived in supposing him to be a favorer of their tenets. But some one will perhaps
say that in his discourses he seems to have adopted the opinions of Arius, because of his fre-
quently saying by Christ. Our answer is that ecclesiastical writers often use this mode of expres-
sion, and others of a similar kind denoting the economy of our Saviour's humanity : and that
before all these the apostle made use of such expressions without ever being accounted a teacher
of false doctrine. Moreover, inasmuch as Arius has dared to say that the Son is a creature, as
one of the others, observe what Eusebius says on this subject in his first book against Marcellus :
'^' He alone, and no other, has been declared to be, and is the only-begotten Son of God ; whence
any one would justly censure those who have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of
nothing, like the rest of the creatures ; for hoio then would he be a Son ? and how could he be
God^s only-begottefi, were he assigned the same nature as the other creatures, and were he one
of the many created things, seeing that he, like them, would in that case be partaker of a creation
from fwthing ? The sacird Scriptures do not thus instruct us concerning these things.^ He again
adds a little afterwards : ' Whoever then determines that the Son is made of things that a?-e not,
and that he is a creature produced from nothing pre-existitig, forgets that while he concedes the
name of Son, he denies him to be so in reality. For he that is made of nothing cannot truly be the
Soti of God, any moir than the other things which have been made : but the true Sofi of God,for-
asmj/ch as he is begotten of the Father, is properly denominated the only-begotten and beloved of
the Father. For this reason also, he himself is God : for what can the offspring rf God be but
the perfect resemblance of him luho begat him ? A sovereign, indeed, builds a city, but does not
beget it; and is said to beget a son, not to build one. An artificer may be called the framcr, but
not the father of his work; while he could by no means be styled the framer of him whom he had
begotten. So also the God of the Universe is the father of the Son; but would be fitly termed the
Framer and Maker of the world. And although it is o?ice said in Scripture, The Lord created
me the beginning of his ways on account of his works, yet it becomes us to consider the import of
this phrase, which I shall hereafter explain ; and not, as Marcellus has done, from a single pas-
sage to subvert one of the most important doctrines of the Church.^
" These and many other such ex])ressions are found in the first book of Eusebius Pamphilus
against Marcellus ; and in his third book, declaring in what sense the term creature is to be taken,
he says : ' Accordingly these things being established, itfolloivs that in the same sense as that which
preceded, these words also are to be understood. The Lord created me in the beginning of his
ways on account of his works. For although he says that he 7oas created, it is not as if he should
say that he had arrived at existence from what was not, nor that he himself also was made of
nothing like the rest of the creatures, which some have erroncouslv supposed : but as subsisting,
living, pre-existing, and being before the constitution of the whole world; and having been
appointed to rule the universe by his Lo7'd and Father : the ivord cxtaXefS. being here used instead
tf/ ordained or constituted. Certainly the apostle expressly called the rulers and governors among
men creature, when he said, Submit yourselves to every human creature for the Lord's sake;
TESTIMONIES IN FAVOR OF EUSEBIUS. 63
wliether to the king as supreme, or to governors as those sent by him. Tlie proplict also docs not
use the woid iKTUTtv created /// tlic sense of made of that wliicli had no previous existence, 7o]ien
he says, I'rcpare, Israel, to invoke thy Ciod. For behold he who confirms the thimder, creates
the Si)irit, and annolmces his Christ unto men. /u>r God did not then create the Spirit udien he
dec/ired his Christ to ad wen, since There is nothing new under the sun ; hut the Spirit 7uas, and
su/>s/sted before : but he was sent at udiat time the apostles ivere gathered together, when like
thi/nder, There came a sound from heaven as of a ru;;hing mighty wind : and they were filled
with the Holy Spirit. And thus they declared unto all men the Christ of God in accordance ivith
that prophecv which savs, Behold he who confirms the thunder, creates the spirit, and announces
his (Jiirist unto men : the word creates being used instead of sends down, or appoints ; and
thunder /;/ a similar way implying the preaching of the Gospel. Again he that says, Create in
me a clean heart, O Ood, said not this as if he had no heart ; but prayed that his mind might be
purified. Thus also it is said, That he might create the two into one new man, instead of unite.
Consider also whether this passage is not of the sa)ne kind, (l\o\\\Q yourselves with the new man,
which is created according to Cod; and this, If, therefore, any one be in C'hrist, he is a new
creature, and whatei'cr other expressions of a similar nature any one may find who shall carefully
search the divinely-inspired Scripture. JJ'herefo/r one should not be suipi-iscd if in this passage.
The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, the term created is used metaphorically, instead
^/appointed, or constituted.'
" These quotations from the books of Eusebius against Marcellus have been adduced to con-
fute those who have slanderously attempted to traduce and criminate him. Neither can they prove
that Eusebius attributes a beginning of subsistence to the Son of God, although they may find
him often using the expressions of dispensation : and especially so, because he was an emulator
and admirer of the works of Origen, in which those who are able to comprehend that author's
writings, will perceive it to be everywhere stated that the Son was begotten of the Father. These
remarks have been made in passing, in order to refute those who have misrepresented Eusebius."
Sozomen in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. i.).
" I at first felt strongly inclined to trace the course of events from the very commencement ;
but on reflecting that similar records of the past, up to their own time, had been compiled by the
learned Clemens and Hegesippus, successors of the apostles, by Africanus the historian and Euse-
bius surnamed Pamphilus, a man intimately acquainted with the sacred Scriptures and the writ-
ings of the Greek poets and historians, I merely drew up an epitome in two books of all that is
recorded to have happened to the churches, from the ascension of Christ to the deposition of
Licinius."
Victorius in the Paschal Canon.
" Reviewing therefore the trustworthy histories of the ancients, namely the Chronicles and
prologue of the blessed Eusebius, bishop of C?esarea, a city in Palestine, a man pre-eminently
accomplished and learned ; and likewise those things which have been added to these same
Chronicles by Jerome of sacred memory."
Jerome, in his Epistle to Chromatins and Heliodorus, prefixed to the Martyrology which bears
Jerome's Name.
"It is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ obtains triumphs at every martyrdom of his saints,
whose sufferings we find described by the saintly Eusebius, bishop of Csesarea. For when Con-
stantine Augustus came to C^esarea and told the celebrated bishop to ask some favors which
should benefit the church at Csesarea, it is said that Eusebius answered : That a church enriched
by its own resources was under no necessity of asking favors, yet that he himself had an unalter-
able desire, that whatever had been done in the Roman republic against God's saints by succes-
sive judges in the whole Roman world they should search out by a careful examination of the
public records ; and that they should draw from the archives themselves and send to Eusebius
himself, by royal command, the names of the martyrs : under what judge, in what province or
city, upon what day, and with what steadfastness, they had obtained the reward ot their suffering,
whence it has come about that, being an able narrator and a diligent historiographer, he has both
composed an Ecclesiastical History and has set forth the triumphs of nearly all of the martyrs of
all the Roman provinces."
64 PROLEGOMENA.
Pope Gelasius in Jiis Dcorc concerning the Apocryphal Books.
" Likewise as to the Chronicles of Eusebius and the books of his Ecclesiastical History,
although in the first book of his narration he has grown cold, and has afterwards written one book
in praise and in defense of Origen the schismatic, yet on account of his singular knowledge of
things which pertain to instruction, we do not say that they ought to be rejected."
The same in his book On the Two Natures.
" That saying the same thing with one heart and one mouth we may also believe what we have
received from our forefathers, and, Ood giving them to us, that we may hand them down to pos-
terity to be believed in, with which things the adduced testimony of the Catholic masters, being
summed up, bear witness that a united faith in a gracious God endures."
And a little fa7'thcr on.
" From the exposition of the seventh psalm, by Eusebius, bishop in Palestine, by surname
Paniphili, etc. Likewise from his Prceparatio Evangelica, Book VIL"
Pope Pelagius II. in his Third Epistle to Elias of Aquileia and other Bishops of Istria.
" For, indeed, among h?eresiarchs who can be found worse than Origen, and among historiog-
raphers who more honorable than Eusebius ? And who of us does not know with how great
praises Eusebius extols Origen in his books? But because the holy Church deals more kindly
with the hearts of her faithful ones than she does severely with their words, neither could the tes-
timony of Eusebius remove him from his proper place among heretics, nor on the other hand has
she condemned Eusebius for the fault of praising Origen."
Evagrius, in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. i).
" Eusebius Pamphili — an especially able writer, to the extent, in particular, of inducing his
readers to embrace our religion, though failing to perfect them in the faith — and Sozomen, Theo-
doret, and Socrates have produced a most excellent record of the advent of our compassionate
God, and his ascension into heaven, and of all that has been achieved in the endurance of the
divine Apostles, as well as of the other martyrs," etc.
Gregory the Great in his Epistle to Eulogii/s, Bishop of Alexandria.
" I have now become one of the number of hearers, to whom your Holiness has taken the
pains to write, that we ought to transmit the deeds of all the martyrs which have been collected
by Eusebius of C^sarea in the age of Constantine of holy memory. But I was not aware before
receiving your Holiness' letter whether these things had been collected or not. I therefore am
thankful that being informed by the writings of your most holy learning, I have begim to know
what I did not know before. For excepting these things which are contained in the books of
this same Eusebius On the deeds of the holy martyrs, I have met with nothing else in the archives
of this our church, nor in the libraries of Rome, except some few collected in a single volume."
Gelasius of Cyzicus in his Second Book On the Cowicil of Nicma (chap. i).
" Let us hear now what says this the most illustrious husbandman in ecclesiastical farming,
the most truth-loving Eusebius, surnamed after the celebrated Pamphilus. Licinius, indeed, he
says, having followed the same path of impiety with the ungodly tyrants, has justly been brought
to the same precipice with them, etc. (which may be found at the end of the tenth book of the
Ecclesiastical History) . As to Eusebius Pamphili, the most trustworthy of ancient ecclesiastical
historians, who has investigated and set forth so many struggles, having made a choice from among
his simply written works, we say that in all ten books of his Ecclesiastical History he has left
behind an accurately written work. Beginning with the advent of our Lord he has, not without
much labor, proceeded as far as those times. For how else could it be with him who took so
great care to preserve for us the harmony of this collection ? But as I have just said, he brought
to bear upon it much study and an untold amount of labor. But let no one suppose, from those
things which have been alleged with regard to him, that this man ever adopted the heresy of
Arius ; but let him be sure, that even if he did speak somewhat of, and did write briefly concern-
ing the conjectures of Arius, he certainly did not do it on account of his entertaining the impious
notion of that man, but from artless simplicity, as indeed he himself fully assures us in his Apology,
which he distributed generally among orthodox bishops."
TESTIMONIES IN FAVOR OF EUSEBIUS. 65
The author of the Alexandrian Chronicle (p. 582).
" The very learned Eusebius Pamphili has written thus : As the Jews crucified Christ at the
feast, so they all perished at their own feast."
Nicephoncs in the Sixth Book 0/ his History (chap. 37).
" Upon whose authority also we know of the divine Pamphilus as both living the life of a phil-
osopher and wearing the dignity of presbyter in that place. His life and every event in it, also
his establishing in that place the study of sacred and profane philosophy, also his confession of
his religion in divers persecutions, his struggles, and at last his wearing the martyr's crown, Euse-
bius his nephew, who had such a regard for him as to take from him his surname, has compre-
hended in detail in one separate book ; to this we refer those who may wish to find out accurately
concerning him. This Eusebius, indeed, although having prosecuted many studies, especially
excels in the study of sacred literature. His Hfe extended until the time of Constantius. Being
a man pre-eminently Christian, and endowed with great zeal for Christ, he has written the Fra;-
paratio Eva7igclica in fifteen books, and in ten more the Demonstj-atio Evangelica. He was also
the first one to take in hand this subject, having been the first to call his book an Ecclesiastical
History ; this work is contained in ten volumes. There is also another book of his extant which
he entitled Canons, in which he accurately investigates chronological matters. He has also composed
five books On the Life of Constantine, and another addressed to him which he calls rpiaKovraer-t]-
piKov. To Stephanus he also dedicates another concerning those things in the sacred Gospels which
have been called in question ; and he has also left behind divers other works which are of great
benefit to the Church. Apart from being such a man as this, he in many ways seems to uphold
the opinions of Arius," etc.
From the MS. Acts of Fope Silvester.
" Eusebius Pamphili, in writing his Ecclesiastical History, has in every case omitted to men-
tion those things which he has pointed out in other works ; for he has put into eleven books the
sufferings of the martyrs, bishops, and confessors, who have suffered in almost all the provinces.
But indeed as to the sufferings of women and maidens, such as with manly fortitude suffered for
the sake of Christ the Lord, he records nothing. He is, moreover, the only one who has set
forth in their order the sufferings of the bishops, from the Apostle Peter down. Moreover, he
drew up for the benefit of the public a catalogue of the pontiffs of those cities and apostolic
seats ; that is, of the great city of Rome, and the cities of Alexandria and Antioch. Of the num-
ber then of those of whom, up to his own times, the above-mentioned author wrote in the Greek
tongue, this man's life he was unable to paraphrase ; that is, the life of the saint Silvester," etc.
An ancient author in the Fassion of the Holy Valenan.
" The glorious struggles of the most blessed martyrs, for the honor of Christ the Lord and of our
God, are celebrated by perpetual services and an annual solemnity, that while our faithful people
know the faith of the martyrs, they may also rejoice in their triumphs, and may rest assured that it is
by the protection of these that they themselves are to be protected. For it is held in repute that
Eusebius the historian, of sacred memory, bishop of the city of Caesarea, a most blessed priest of
excellent life, very learned also in ecclesiastical matters, and to be venerated for his extraordinary
carefulness, set forth for every city, in so far as the truth was able to be ascertained, the Holy
Spirit announcing the deeds that had been done, — inasmuch as the cities of single provinces and
localities or towns have merited being made famous by the heavenly triumphs of martyrs, — set
forth, I say, in the time of what rulers the innumerable persecutions were inflicted at the com-
mand of officials. Who, although he has not described entire the sufferings of individual mar-
tyrs, yet has truly intimated why they ought to be described or celebrated by faithful and devoted
Christians. Thus this faithfiil husbandman has cultivated the grace of God, which has been
scattered abroad in all the earth, while, as it were, from a single grain of wheat, plenteous har-
vests are produced on account of the fertility of the field, and go on in multiplied abundance.
So through the narration of the above-mentioned man, diffused from the fountain of a single book,
with the ever-spreading writings of the faithful, the celebrating of the sufferings of the martyrs
has watered all the earth."
Usuardus in his Martyj-ology.
" On the twenty-first day of June, in Palestine, the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor, a man
of most excellent genius, and a historiographer."
VOL. I. F
66 PROLEGOMENA.
Notker in his Martyrology.
" On the twenty-first day of June, the deposition in Csesarea of the holy bishop Eusebius."
Manecharius in his Epistle to Ceraunius, Bishop of Patis.
" Unceasing in thy continual efforts to equal in merit the very excellent persons of the most
blessed bishops in all the conversation of the priesthood, zealous to adorn thyself every day with
holy religion, by thy zeal for reading thou hast searched through the whole of the doctrines of
the sacred Scriptures. Now as an addition to thy praiseworthiness thou dost faithfully purpose,
in the city of Paris, to gather together for the love of religion, the deeds of the holy martyrs.
Wherefore thou art worthy of being compared in zeal with Eusebius of Csesarea, and art worthy
of being remembered perpetually with an equal share of glory."
From an old Manuscript Breviary of the Lemovicensian Church.
" Of the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor.
"Lesson i. Eusebius, bishop of Csesarea in Palestine, on account of his friendship with
Pamphilus the martyr, took from him the surname of Pamphili ; inasmuch as along with this same
Pamphilus he was a most diligent investigator of sacred literature. The man indeed is very
worthy of being remembered in these times, both for his skill in many things, and for his won-
derful genius, and by both Gentiles and Christians he was held distinguished and most noble
among philosophers. This man, after having for a time labored in behalf of the Arian heresy,
coming to the council of Nicsea, inspired by the Holy Spirit, followed the decision of the
Fathers, and thereafter up to the time of his death lived in a most holy manner in the orthodox
faith.
"Lesson 2. He was, moreover, very zealous in the study of the sacred Scriptures, and along
with Pamphilus the martyr was a most diligent investigator of sacred literature. At the same
time he has written many things, but especially the following books : The Praparatio Evangclica,
the Ecclesiastical History, Agaitist Porphyry, a very bitter enemy of the Christians ; he has also
composed Six Apologies in Behalf of Origen, a Life of Pamphilus the Martyr, from whom on
account of friendship he took his surname, in three books ; likewise very learned Conujientaries
on the hundred and fifty Psalms.
" Lesson 3. Moreover, as we read, after having ascertained the sufferings of many holy
martyrs in all the provinces, and the lives of confessors and virgins, he has written concerning these
saints twenty books ; while on account of these books therefore, and especially on account of his
Preeparatio Evangclica, he was held most distinguished among the Gentiles, because of his
love of truth he contemned the ancestral worship of the gods. He has written also a Chronicle,
extending from the first year of Abraham up to the year 300 a.d., which the divine Hieronymus
has continued. Finally this Eusebius, after the conversion of Constantine the threat, was united to
him by strong friendship as long as he lived."
Lt the Breviary of the same church, Jime twenty-first.
" Omnipotent, eternal God, who dost permit us to take part in the festivities in honor of Euse-
bius, thy holy confessor and priest, bring us, we pray thee, through his prayers, into the society of
heavenly joys, through our Lord Jesus Christ," etc.^
From the book On the Lights of the Church.
" Eusebius of Csesarea, the key of the Scriptures and custodian of the New Testament, is
proved by the Greeks to be greater than many in his treatises. There are three celebrated works
of his which truly testify to this : the Canons of the Four Gospels, which set forth and defend the
New Testament, ten books of Ecclesiastical Histoiy, and the Chronicon, that is, a chronological
summary. We have never found any one who has been able to follow in all his foot-prints."
From the Miscellanies of Theodore Mctochita (chap, 19).
" Eusebius Pamphili was also a Palestinian by birth, but as he himself says, he sojourned for
quite a long time in Egypt. He was a very learned man, and it is evident indeed that he \}\\h-
lished many books, and that he used language thus."
■^ Valesius adds brief extracts from other missals of the same church, which it is not necessary to quote here.
TESTIMONIES AGAINST EUSKBIUS. 67
TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS AGAINST EUSEBIUS.
From the Epistle of Ariiis to Eusebius, Bishop of Nico media (in Thcodoret's Ecclcs. Hist. I. 5),'
" Eusebius, your brother bishop of C?esarea, Theodotius, PauUnus, Athanasius, Clregory, ^tius,
and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an exist-
ence prior to that of his Son."
From the Book of MarccUiis of Ancyra against the Arians.
" Having happened upon a letter of Narcissus, bishop of Neronias, which he \vrote to one
Chrestus and to Euphronius and to Eusebius, in which it seems that Hosius, the bishop, had
asked him whether or not like Eusebius of Palestine he believed in the existence of two essences,
I read in the writing that he answered that he believed in the existence of three essences."
From the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt, met in the City of Alexandria, to All the
Bishops of the Catholic Church (which Athanasius gives in his second apology against the
Arians) .
" For what sort of a council of bishops was that? What sort of an assembly having truth for
its aim? Who out of the great majority of them was not our enemy? Did not the followers of
Eusebius rise up against us on account of the Arian madness ? Did not they bring forward the
others who held the same opinions as themselves ? Were we not continually writing against them
as against those who held the opinions of Arius ? Was not Eusebius of Csesarea in Palestine
accused by our confessors of sacrificing ? "
Epiphanitis in the Heresy of the Meletians (^Hcer. LXVIIL).
" The emperor upon hearing these things becomes very angry and orders that a synod be con-
voked in Phoenicia in the city of Tyre ; he also gave orders that Eusebius and some others should
act as judges : these persons moreover had leaned somewhat too far toward the vulgarity of
the Arians. There were also summoned the bishops of the CathoHc Church in Egypt, also certain
men subject to Athanasius, who were likewise great and who kept their lives transparent before God,
among whom was the great Potamo of blessed memory, bishop and confessor of Heraclea. But
there were also present Meletians, the chief accusers of Athanasius. Being zealous for truth and for
orthodoxy, the above-mentioned Potamo of blessed memory, a free-spoken man, who regarded the
person of no man, — for he had been deprived of an eye in the persecution for the truth, — seeing
Eusebius sitting down and acting as judge, and Athanasius standing up, overcome by grief and
weeping, as is the wont with true men, he addressed Eusebius in a loud voice, saying, ' Dost thou
sit down, Eusebius, and is Athanasius, an innocent man, judged by thee ? Who could bear such
things? Do thou tell me, wert thou not in confinement with me at the time of the persecution?
I have parted v/ith an eye for the sake of the truth, but thou neither seemest to be maimed at
all in body, nor hast thou suffered martyrdom, but art alive, and in no part mutilated. How
didst thou escape from the confinement unless that thou didst promise those who have inflicted
upon us the violence of persecution to perform the ungodly act, or didst actually perform it?'"
From the Epistle of the Catholic Bishops of Egypt to the Synod of Tyre (which Athanasius gives in
the above-mentioned Apology).
" For ye also know, as we have said before, that they are our enemies, and ye know why
Eusebius of Csesarea has become our enemy since last year."
Athanasius in his Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Niccea.
" The strange thing is that Eusebius of Csesarea in Palestine, who had denied on one day, but
on the next day had subscribed, sent to his church, saying that this is the faith of the Church,
' This extract is not given by Valesius.
F 2
68 PROLEGOMENA
and that this is the tradition of the Fathers. He plainly showed to all that before they had been
in error, and had been vainly striving after the truth ; for although he was then ashamed to write
in just these terms, and excused himself to the Church as he himself wished, yet he plainly wishes
to imply this in his Epistle, by his not denying the ' Homoousion,' ' one in substance,' and ' of
the substance.' He got into serious difficulty, for in defending himself, he went on to accuse the
Arians, because, having written that ' the Son did not exist before that he was begotten,' they
thereby denied that he existed before his birth in the flesh."
The same, in his Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleiicia,
" Most of all, what would Acacius say to Eusebius his own teacher ? who not only signed in
the synod at Nicaea, but also made it known by letter to the people under him that that was the
true faith, which had been agreed upon at the council of Nic?ea ; for although he defended him-
self as he pleased through the letter, yet he did not deny the grounds taken. But he also accused
the Arians, since, in saying that 'the Son did not exist before that he was begotten,' they also
deny that he existed before Mary."
The satne, in his Epistle to the Bishops of Africa.
"This also was known all the while to Eusebius, bishop of Cresarea, who, at first identifying
himself with the Arian heresy, and having afterwards signed at the self-same synod of Nicaea,
wrote to his own particular friends, firmly maintaining that, ' We have known of certain learned
and renowned bishops and writers among the ancients who have used the term o/Aoowtos in refer-
ence to the divinity of the Father and Son.' "
The same, in his Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia.
" Eusebius of Csesarea in Palestine, writing to Euphration the bishop, did not fear to say
openly that Christ is not true God."
y^erome, in his Epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians.
" He did this in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, that he might designate with the
name of the martyr Pamphilus the first of the six books in defense of Origen which were written
by Eusebius of Csesarea, whom every one knows to have been an Arian."
The same, in his Second Book against Rufinus.
" As soon as he leaves the harbor he runs his ship aground. For, quoting from the Apology
of Pamphilus the Martyr (which we have proved to be the work of Eusebius, prince of Arians),"
etc.
The same, in his First Book against Rufinus.
" Eusebius, bishop of Csesarea, of whom I have made mention above, in the sixth book of his
Apology in behalf of Origen, lays this same charge against Methodius the bishop and martyr,
which you lay against me in my praises [of him] ; he says : ' How did Methodius dare to write
against Origen after having said this and that concerning his opinions ? ' This is no place to speak
in behalf of a martyr, for not all things ought to be discussed in all places. Now let it suffice to
have barely touched upon the matter, that this same thing was charged against a most renowned
and most eloquent martyr by an Arian, which you as a friend praise in me, and, being offended,
censure me for."
The same, in his Epistle to Minervius and Alexander.
" I both in manhood and in extreme old age am of the same opinion, that Origen and Euse-
bius of Csesarea were indeed very learned men, but went astray in the truth of their opinions."
Socrates, in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical Hisioiy (chap. 23).
" Eusebius Pamphilus says that immediately after the Synod Egypt became agitated by intes-
tine divisions ; but as he does not assign the reason for this, some have accused him of disingen-
uousness, and have even attributed his fiiilure to specify the causes of these dissensions to a
determination on his part not to give his sanction to the proceedings at Nice."
TESTIMONIES AGAINST EUSEBIUS. 69
Again, in the same chapter.
" Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene Creed •
but Eusebius denies that he violates that exposition of the faith, and recriminates, saying that
Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of SabelUus. In consequence of these misunderstand-
ings, each of them wrote volumes as if contending against adversaries : and although it was
admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowl-
edged that there is one God in a Trinity of Persons ; yet, from what cause I am unable to divine,
they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace."
Thcodoriius, in his Interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, speaking of the Arians
writes as follows :
" If not even this is sufficient to persuade them, it at least behooves them to believe Eusebius
of Palestine, whom they call the chief advocate of their own doctrines."
Nicetas, in his Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith, Book V. Chap. 7.
" Moreover, Theodore of Mopsuestia relates that there were only nine persons out of all
whom the decrees of the Synod did not please, and that their names are as follows : Theognis of
Niceea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Eusebius of Csesarea in Palestine,
Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, which is now called Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre, Menophantus
of Ephesus, Secundus of Ptolemais, which borders upon Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica."^
Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against Eusebius'' Apology for Origen.
" I deny that the man has yet arrived at an accurate knowledge of the doctrines ; wherefore
he ought to be given place to so far as regards his great learning, but as regards his knowledge
of doctrine he ought not. But, moreover, we know him to have been altogether lacking in such
accurate knowledge."
And a little farther on.
" So now, that we may not seem to be trampling upon the man, — concerning whom it is not
our purpose for the present to speak, — examining into the accuracy of his Apology, we may go on
to show that both were heretics, both he who composed the Apology, and he in whose behalf it
was composed."
And farther ofi.
" For as to your attempting to show that others as well as he [Origen] have spoken of the
subordination of the Son to the Father, we may not at first wonder at it, for such is your opinion
and that of your followers ; wherefore we say nothing concerning this matter for the present,
since it was long ago submitted and condemned at the general Council."
From the Acts of the Seventh (Ecumenical Council.
" For who of the faithful ones in the Church, and who of those who have obtained a knowl-
edge of true doctrine, does not know that Eusebius Pamphili has given himself over to false ways
of thinking, and has become of the same opinion and of the same mind with those who follow after
the opinions of Arius ? In all his historical books he calls the Son and Word of God a creature, a
servant, and to be adored as second in rank. But if any speaking in his defense say that he sub-
scribed in the council, we may admit that that is true ; but while with his lips he has respected
the truth, in his heart he is far from it, as all his writings and epistles go to show. But if from
time to time, on account of circumstances or from different causes, he has become confused or
has changed around, sometimes praising those who hold to the doctrines of Arius, and at other
times feigning the truth, he shows himself to be, according to James the brother of our Lord, a
double-minded man, unstable in all his ways ; and let him not think that he shall receive anything
of the Lord. For if with the heart he had believed unto righteousness, and with the mouth had
confessed the truth unto salvation, he would have asked forgiveness for his writings, at the same
time correcting them. But this he has by no means done, for he remained like ^thiops with his
skin unchanged. In interpreting the verse * I said to the Lord, Thou art my Lord,' he has strayed
far away from the true sense, for this is what he says : ' By the laws of nature every son's father
1 Valesius inserts after this extract a brief and unimportant quo- I — severed as it is from its context, which is not accessible to me, —
tation from Eulogius of Alexandria, which, however, is so obscure, | that no translation of it has been attempted.
70 PROLEGOMENA.
must be his lord ; wherefore God who begat him must be at the same time God, Lord, and Father
of the only-begotten Son of God.' So also in his epistle to the holy Alexander, the teacher of the
great Athanasius, which begins thus : ' With what anxiety and with what care have I set about
writing this letter,' in most open blasphemy he speaks as follows concerning Arius and his fol-
lowers : ' Thy letter accuses them of saying that the Son was made out of nothing, like all men.
But they have produced their own epistle which tliey wrote to thee, in which they give an account
of their faith, and expressly confess that " the God of the law and of the prophets and of the New
Testament, before eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son, through whom also he made the ages
and the universe ; and that he begat him not in appearance, but in truth, and subjected him to his
own will, unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures."
If, therefore, the letter received from tliem tells the truth, they wholly contradict thee, in that they
confess that the Son of God who existed before eternal ages, and through whom he made the
world, is unchangeable and a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures. But thy
epistle accuses them of saying that the Son was made as one of the creatures. They do not say
this, but clearly declare that he was not as one of the creatures. See if cause is not immediately
given them again to attack and to misrepresent whatever they please. Again thou findest fault
with them for saying that He who is begat him who was not. I wonder if any one is able to say
anything else than that. For if He who is is one, it is plain that everything has been made by
Him and after Him. But if He who is is not the only one, but there was also a Son existing, how
did He who is beget him who was existing? For thus those existing would be two.' These things
then Eusebius wrote to the illustrious Alexander ; but there are also other epistles of his directed
to the same holy man, in which are found various blasphemies in defense of the followers of Arius.
So also, in writing to the bishop Euphration, he blasphemes most openly ; his letter begins thus :
' I return to my Lord all thanks ' ; and farther on : ' For we do not say that the Son was with the
Father, but that the Father was before the Son. But the Son of God himself, knowing well that
he was greater than all, and knowing that he was other than the Father, and less than and subject
to Him, very piously teaches this to us also when he says, " The Father who sent me is greater
than L" ' And farther on : ' Since the Son also is himself God, but not true God.' So then from
these writings of his he shows that he holds to the doctrines of Arius and his followers. And with
this rebellious heresy of theirs the inventors of that Arian madness hold to one nature in hypo-
static union, and affirm that our Lord took upon himself a body without soul, in his scheme of
redemption, affirming that the divine nature supplied the purposes and movements of the soul :
that, as Gregory the Divine says, they may ascribe suffering to the Deity ; and it is evident that
those who ascribe suffering to the Deity are Patripassians. Those who share in this heresy do not
allow images, as the impious Severus did not, and Peter Cnapheus, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis,
and all their followers, the many-headed yet headless hydra. So then Eusebius, who belongs to
this faction, as has been shown from his epistles and historical writings, as a Patripassian rejected
the image of Christ," etc'
Photitis, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine.
" That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of Pamphilus I know not) was carried off by Arian-
ism, his books loudly proclaim. And he, feeling repentance as he pretends, and against his will,
confesses to his infirmity ; although by his repentance he rather shows that he has not repented.
For he cannot show, by means of those writings in which he would seem to be defending himself,
that he has withdrawn from his former heretical doctrines, nor can he show that he agreed with the
holy and (F^cumenical Synod. But he speaks of it as a marvel that the upholders of the Homo-
ousion should concur with him in sentiment and agree with him in opinion : and this fact both
many other things and the epistle written by him to his own i)eople at Cassarea accurately con-
firm. But that from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian doctrines, and that up to the
end of his life lie did not cease following them, many know, and it is easy to gather it from many
sources ; but that he shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely, the error with regard to the
common resurrection of us all, is to most persons unknown. But if thou thyself examine carefully
his books, thou shalt see that he was none the less truly overcome by that deadly disease than he
was by the Arian madness."
Photius, in his Bihlioiheca (chap. 13).
" Of the Objection and Defense of ICusebius two books have been read ; also other two, which
although differing in some respects from the former two, are in other respects the same with regard
> This extract is translated from the original Greek of the Acts of I and Cossartiiis in their Concilia, Tom. VII. p. 4qi; sq.). Valesius
the Second Nicene Council, Act VI. Tom. V. (as given by Labbe | gives only a Latin translation, and that in a fragmentary form.
TESTIMONIES AGAINST EUSEBIUS. 71
to both diction and thought. But he presents certain difficulties with regard to our blameless
religion as having originated with the Greeks. These he correctly solves, although not in all
cases. But as regards his diction, it is by no means either pleasing or brilliant. The man is
indeed very learned, although as regards shrewdness of mind and firmness of character, as well
as accuracy in doctrine, he is deficient. For also in many places in these books it is plain to be
seen that he blasphemes against the Son, calling him a second cause, and general-in-chief, and
other terms which have hail their origin in the Arian madness. It seems that he nourished in the
time of Constantine the Great. He was also an ardent admirer of the excellences of the holy
martyr Pamphilus, for which cause some say that he took from him the surname Pamphili."
Photius, in the Same Work (chap. 127).
" There has been read the work of Eusebius Pamphili In praise of the great emperor Con-
stantine, consisting of four books. In this is contained the whole life of the man, starting witli
his very boyhood, also whatever deeds of his belong to ecclesiastical history, until he departed
from life at the age of sixty-four. Eusebius is, however, even in this work, like himself in diction,
except that his discourse has risen to a somewhat more than usual briUiancy, and that sometimes
he has made use of more flowery expressions than he is wont. However, of pleasantness and
beauty of expression there is little, as indeed is the case in his other works. He inserts, more-
over, in this work of his in four books very many passages from the whole decalogue of his
Ecclesiastical History. He says that Constantine the Great himself also was baptized in Nicome-
dia, he having put off his baptism until then, because he desired to be baptized in the Jordan.
Who baptized him he does not clearly show. However, as to the heresy of Arius, he does not defi-
nitely state whether he holds that opinion, or whether he has changed ; or even whether Arius
held correct or incorrect views, although he ought to have made mention of these things, because
the synod occupied an important place among the deeds of Constantine the Great, and it again
demands a detailed account of them. But he does state that a ' controversy ' arose between Arius
and Alexander (this is the name he cunningly gives to the heresy), and that the God-fearing
prince was very much grieved at this controversy, and strove by epistles and through Hosius, who
was then bishop of Cordova, to bring back the dissenting parties into peace and concord, they hav-
ing laid aside the strife existing between them v/ith regard to such questions ; and that when he
could not persuade them to do this he convoked a synod from all quarters, and that it dissolved
into peace the strife that had arisen. These things, however, are not described accurately or
clearly ; it would seem then that he is ashamed, as it were, and does not wish to make public the
vote cast against Arius in the Synod, and the just retribution of those who were his companions
in impiety and who were cast out together with him. Finally, he does not even mention the terri-
ble fate which was inflicted by God upon Arius in the sight of all. None of these things he brings
to the light, nor has he drawn up an account of the Synod and the things that were done in it.
Whence, also, when about to write a narrative concerning the divine Eustathius, he does not even
mention his name, nor what things were threatened and executed against him ; but referring
these things also to sedition and tumult, he again speaks of the calmness of the bishops, who
having been convened in Antioch by the zeal and cooperation of the Emperor, changed the sedi-
tion and tumult into peace. Likewise as to what things were maliciously contrived against the
ever-conquering Athanasius, when he set about making his history cover these things, he says that
Alexandria again was filled with sedition and tumult, and that this was calmed by the coming of
the bishops, who had the imperial aid. But he by no means makes it clear who was the leader
of the sedition, what sort of sedition it was, or by what means the strife was settled. He also
keeps up almost the same mode of dissimulating in his account of the contentions existing among
bishops with respect to doctrines, and their disagreements on other matters."
Joannes Zonaras, in his Third Volume, in which he relates the Deeds of Constantine.
" Even Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Csesarea in Palestine, was at that time one of those
who upheld the doctrines of Arius. He is said to have afterwards withdrawn from the opinion
of Arius, and to have become of like mind with those who hold that the Son is coequal and of
the same nature with the Father, and to have been received into communion by the holy Fathers.
Moreover, in the Acts of the first Synod, he is found to have defended the faithful. These things
are found thus narrated by some ; but he makes them to appear doubtful by certain things which
he is seen to have written in his Ecclesiastical History. For in many places in the above-
mentioned work he seems to be following after Arius. In the very beginning of his book, where
he quotes David as saying, ' He spake and they were made, he commanded and they were estab-
72
PROLEGOMENA.
lished,' he says that the Father and Maker is to be considered as maker and universal ruler,
governing by a kingly nod, and that the second after him in authority, the divine Word, is sub-
ject to the commands of the Father. And farther on he says, that he, as being the power and
wisdom of the Father, is entrusted with the second place in the kingdom and rule over all.
And again, a little farther on, that there is also a certain essence, living and subsisting before the
world, which ministers to the God and Father of the universe for the creation of things that
are created. Also Solomon, in the person of the wisdom of God, says, * The Lord created me
in the beginning of his ways,' etc., and farther on he says : And besides all this, as the pre-
existent word of God, who also preexisted before all ages created, he received divine honor from
the Father, and is worshipped as God. These and other things show that Eusebius agreed with
Arian doctrines, unless some one say that they were written before his conversion."
Suidas, under the word AioSwpos.
" Diodorus, a monk, who was bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, in the times of Julian and Valens,
wrote divers works, as Theodoras Lector states in his Ecclesiastical History. These are as fol-
lows : A Chronicle y which corrects the error of Eusebius Pamphilus with regard to chronology,"
etc.
The same Suidas, from Sophronitts.
"Eusebius Pamphili, a devotee of the Arian heresy, bishop of Csesarea in Palestine, a man
zealous in the study of the holy Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most careful
investigator of sacred literature, has pubUshed many books, among which are the following." '
)> 1
' The remainder of this extract from Sophronius is a translation
of the chapter of Jerome's cie viris ilhtstribus, which is quoted
above, on p. 60, and is therefore omitted at this point. Valesius
adds some extracts from Baronius and Scaliger; but inasmuch as
they are to be classed with modern rather than with ancient writerS;
it has seemed best to omit the quotations from their works.
CONTENTS OF THE CHURCH HISTORY.
BOOK I.
PAGE
Chap. 1. — The plan of the work 8i
Chap. II. — Summary view of the pre-existence and divinity of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ 82
Chap. III. — The name Jesus and also the name Christ were known from the beginning, and were honored
by the inspired prophets 85
Chap. IV. — The religion proclaimed by him to all nations was neither new nor strange 87
Chap. V. — The time of his appearance among men 88
Chap. VI, — About the time of Christ, in accordance with prophecy, the rulers who had governed the Jewish
nation in regular succession from the days of antiquity came to an end, and Herod, the first foreigner,
became king 89
Chap. VII. — The alleged discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the genealogy of Christ 91
Chap. VIII. — The cruelty of Herod toward the infants, and the manner of his death 94
Chap. IX. —The times of Pilate 96
Chap. X. — The high priests of the Jews under whom Christ taught 96
Chap. XI. — Testimonies in regard to John the Baptist and Christ 97
Chap. XII. — The disciples of our Saviour 98
Chap. XIII. — Narrative concerning the Prince of the Edessenes 100
BOOK II.
Introduction 103
Chap. I. — The course pursued by the apostles after the ascension of Christ , 103
Chap. II. — How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate concerning Christ 105
Chap. III. — The doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout all the world 107
Chap. IV. — After the death of Tiberius, Caius appointed Agrippa king of the Jews, having punished Herod
with perpetual exile 107
Chap. V. — Philo's embassy to Caius in behalf of the Jews 108
Chap. VI. — The misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews after their presumption against Christ 109
Chap. VII. — Pilate's suicide no
Chap. VIII. — The famine which took place in the reign of Claudius no
Chap. IX. — The martyrdom of James the apostle no
Chap. X. — Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having persecuted the apostles, immediately experienced the
Divine vengeance m
Chap. XI. — The impostor Theudas and his followers 112
Chap. XII. — Helen, the queen of the Osrhoenians "3
Chap. XIII. — Simon Magus "3
Chap. XIV. — The preaching of the apostle Peter in Rome "5
Chap. XV. — The Gospel according to Mark "5
Chap. XVI. — Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the inhabitants of Egypt n6
74 THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
PAGE
Chap. XVII. — Philo's account of the ascetics of Egypt 117
Chap. XVIII. — The works of Philo that have come down to us 119
Chap. XIX. — The calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of the Passover 122
Chap. XX. — The events which took place in Jerusalem during the reign of Nero 122
Chap. XXI. — The Egyptian who is mentioned also in the Acts of the Apostles , 123
Chap. XXII. — Paul, having been sent bound from Judea to Rome, made his defense, and was acquitted of
every charge 123
Chap. XXIII. — The martyrdom of James, who was called the brother of the Lord 125
Chap. XXIV. — Annianus, the first bishop of the church of Alexandria after Mark 128
Chap. XXV. — The persecution under Nero, in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome with martyrdom
in behalf of religion 1 28
Chap. XXVI. — The Jews, afflicted with innumerable evils, commenced the last war against the Romans 1 30
BOOK III.
Chap. I. — The parts of the world in which the apostles preached Christ 132
Chap. II. — The first ruler of the church of Rome 133
Chap. III. — The epistles of the apostles „ 133
Chap. IV. — The first successors of the apostles 136
Chap. V. — The last siege of the Jews after Christ 1 38
Chap. VI. — The famine which oppressed them 1 39
Chap. VII. — The predictions of Christ 141
Chap. VIII. — The signs which preceded the war 142
Chap. IX. — Josephus and the works which he has left 143
Chap. X. — The manner in which Josephus mentions the divine books 144
Chap. XI. — Simeon rules the church of Jerusalem after James 146
Chap. XII. — Vespasian commands the descendants of David to be sought 146
Chap. XIII. — Anencletus, the second bishop of Rome 147
Chap. XIV. — Abilius, the second bishop of Alexandria I47
Chap. XV. — Clement, the third bishop of Rome 147
Chap. XVI. — The epistle of Clement 147
Chap. XVII. — The persecution under Domitian 147
Chap. XVIII. — The apostle John and the Apocalypse 148
Chap. XIX. — Domitian commands the descendants of David to be slain 148
Chap. XX. — The relatives of our Saviour 148
Chap. XXI. — Cerdon becomes the third ruler of the church of Alexandria '49
Chap. XXII. — Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch 149
Chap. XXIII. — Narrative concerning John the apostle 15°
Chap. XXIV. — The order of the Gospels 152
Chap. XXV. — The divine Scriptures that are accepted, and those that are not '55
Chap. XXVI. — Menander, the Sorcerer 157
Chap. XXVII. —The heresy of the Ebionites 158
Chap. XXVIII. —Cerinthus, the heresiarch 160
Chap. XXIX. — Nicolaus, and the sect named after him 161
Chap. XXX. — The apostles that were married 161
Chap. XXXI. — The death of John and Philip 162
Chap. XXXII. — Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, suffers martyrdom 163
Chap. XXXIII. — Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after 164
'
CONTENTS. 75
I'ACE
Chap. XXXIV. — Evarcstus, the fuurlli bishop of the churcli of Rome i66
Chap. XXXV. — Justus, the third bishop of Jerusalem 1 66
(HAP. XXXVI. — Ignatius and his epistles i66
Chap. XXXVII. — The evangelists that were still eminent at tliat time 169
Chap. XXXVIII. — The epistles of Clement, and the writings falsely ascribed to him 169
Chap. XXXIX. —The writings of Papias 170
BOOK IV.
Chap. I. — The bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the reign of Trajan 174
Chap. II. — The calamities of the Jews during Trajan's reign 1 74
Chap. III. — The Apologists that wrote in defense of the faith during the reign of Adrian 175
Chap. IV. — The bishops of Rome and of Alexandria under the same emperor 1 75
Chap. V. — The bishops of Jerusalem, from the age of our Saviour to the period under consideration 176
Chap. VI. — The last siege of the Jews under Adrian 177
Chap. VII. — The persons that became at that time leaders of knowledge falsely so-called 178
Chap. VIII. — Ecclesiastical writers 180
Chap. IX. — The epistle of Adrian, decreeing that we should not be punished without a trial 182
Chap. X. — The bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the reign of Antoninus 1S2
Chap. XI. — The heresiarchs of that age 1 82
Chap. XII. — The apology of Justin, addressed to Antoninus 185
Chap. XIII. — The epistle of Antoninus to the common assembly of Asia, in regard to our doctrine 186
Chap. XIV. — The circumstances related of Polycarp, a friend of the apostles 187
Chap. XV. — Under Verus, Polycarp, with others, suffered martyrdom at Smyrna 188
Chap. XVI. — Justin, the philosopher, preaches the word of Christ in Rome, and suffers martyrdom 193
Chap. XVII. — The martyrs whom Justin mentions in his own work 195
Chap. XVIII. — The works of Justin that have come down to us 196
Chap. XIX. — The rulers of the churches of Rome and Alexandria during the reign of Verus 197
Chap. XX. — The rulers of the church of Antioch 197
Ch.\p. XXI. — The ecclesiastical writers that flourished in those days 197
Chap. XXII. — Hegesippus, and the events which he mentions 198
Chap. XXIII. — Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and the epistles which he wrote 200
Chap. XXIV. — Theophilus, bishop of Antioch 202
Chap. XXV. — Philip and Modestus 203
Chap. XXVI. — Melito, and the circumstances which he records 203
Chap. XXVII. — Apolinarius, bishop of the church of Plierapolis 206
Chap. XXVIII. — Musanus and his writings 207
Chap. XXIX. — The heresy of Tatian 207
CiLA.p. XXX. — Bardesanes, the Syrian, and his extant works 209
BOOK V.
Introduction 211
Chap. I. — The number of those who fought for religion in Gaul under Verus, and the nature of their con-
flicts 211
Chap. II. — The witnesses, beloved of God, kindly ministered to those who fell in the persecution 217
Chap. III. — The vision which appeared in a dream to the witness Attalus 218
Chap, IV. — Irenasus commended by the witnesses in a letter 219
76 THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
PAGE
Chap. V. — God sent rain from heaven for Marcus Aurelius Caesar, in answer to the prayers of our people. . . 219
Chap. VI. — Catalogue of the bishops of Rome 221
Chap. VII. — Even down to those times miracles were performed by the faithful 221
Chap, VIII. — The statements of Irenceus in regard to the Divine Scriptures 222
Chap. IX. — The bishops under Commodus 224
Chap. X. — Pantoenus, the philosopher 224
Chap. XL — Clement of Alexandria 225
Chap. XII. — The bishops in Jerusalem 226
Chap. XIII. — Rhodo, and his account of the dissension of Marcion 227
Chap. XIV. —The false prophets of the Phrygians 229
Chap. XV. — The schism of Blastus at Rome 229
Chap. XVI. — The circumstances related of Montanus and his false prophets 229
Chap. XVII. — Miltiades and his works 233
Chap. XVIII. — The manner in which ApoUonius refuted the Phrygians, and the persons whom he mentions. 235
Chap. XIX. — Serapion on the heresy of the Phrygians 237
Chap. XX. — The writings of Irenaeus against the schismatics at Rome 237
Chap. XXI. — How ApoUonius suffered martyrdom at Rome 239
Chap. XXII. — The bishops that were well known at this time 240
Chap. XXIII. — The question then agitated concerning the Passover 241
Chap. XXIV. — The disagreement in Asia 242
Chap. XXV. — How all came to an agreement respecting the Passover 244
Chap. XXVI. — The elegant works of Irenaeus which have come down to us 244
Chap. XXVII. — The works of others that flourished at that time 244
Chap. XXVIII. — Those who first advanced the heresy of Artemon; their manner of life, and how they dared
to corrupt the sacred Scriptures > 246
BOOK VI.
Chap. I. — The persecution under Severus 249
Chap. II. — The training of Origen from childhood 249
Chap. III. — While still very young, he taught diligently the word of Christ 251
Chap. IV. — The pupils of Origen that became martyrs 252
Chap. V. — Potamicena 253
Chap. VI. — Clement of Alexandria 253
Chap. VII. — The writer, Judas 254
Chap. VIII. — Origen's daring deed 254
Chap. IX. — The miracles of. Narcissus 255
Chap. X. — The bishops of Jerusalem 256
Chap. XI. — Alexander 256
Chap. XII. — Serapion and his extant works 257
Chap. XIII. — The writings of Clement 258
Chap. XIV. — The Scriptures mentioned by him 261
Chap. XV. — Heraclas 262
Chap. XVI. — Origen's earnest study of the Divine Scriptures 262
Chap. XVII. — The translator Symmachus 264
Chap. XVIII. — Ambrose 264
Chap. XIX. — Circumstances related of Origen 264
Chap. XX. —The extant works of the writers of that age 268
CONTENTS. 77
PACE
CiiAP. XXI. — The bishops that were well known at that time 268
CiiAr. XXII. — The works of Hippolytus which have reached us 269
J- Chap. XXIII. — Oiigen's zeal and his elevation to the presbyterate 271
CliAr. XXIV. — The commentaries which he prepared at Alexandria 271
CiiAr. XXV. — His review of the canonical scriptures 272
Chai'. XXVI. — Heraclas becomes bishop of Alexandria 274
Chap. XXVII. — How the bishops regarded Origen 274
— CiiAi". XXVIII. — The persecution under Maximinus. . 274
CiiAi'. XXIX. — Fabianus, who was wonderfully designated bishop of Rome by God 274
■^ Chap. XXX. — The pupils of Origen 275
Chai'. XXXI. — Africanus 276
- Chap. XXXII. — The commentaries which Origen composed in Ctesarea in Palestine 277
Chap. XXXIII. — The error of Beryllus 277
Chap. XXXIV. — Philip Cxsar 278
Chap. XXXV. — Dionysius succeeds Heraclas in the episcopate 278
i --Chap. XXXVI, — Other works of Origen 278
Chap. XXXVII. — The dissension of the Arabians 279
—Chap. XXXVIII. — The heresy of the Elkesites 279
Chap. XXXIX. — The persecution under Decius and the sufferings of Origen 280
Chap. XL. — The events which happened to Dionysius 281
Chap. XLI. — The martyrs in Alexandria 283
Chap. XLII. — Others of whom Dionysius gives an account 285
Chap. XLIII. — Novatus, his manner of life and his heresy 286
Chap. XLIV. — Dionysius's account of Serapion 290
Chap. XLV. — An epistle of Dionysius to Novatus 290
Chap. XLVI. — Other epistles of Dionysius 291
BOOK VII.
Introduction 293
Chap, I. — The wickedness of Decius and Callus 293
Chap, II, — The bishops of Rome in those times 293
Chap, III, — Cyprian, and the bishops with him, first taught that it was necessary to purify by baptism those
converted from heresy 294
Chap. IV. — The epistles which Dionysius wrote on this subject 294
Chap, V, — The peace following the persecution 294
Chap. VI. — The heresy of Sabellius 295
Chap, VII, — The abominable error of the heretics; the Divine vision of Dionysius, and the ecclesiastical
canon which he received , 295
Chap. VIII. — The heterodoxy of Novatus 296
Chap. IX. — The ungodly baptism of the heretics 297
Chap, X, — Valerian, and the persecution under him 298
Chap. XI. — The events which happened at this time to Dionysius and those in Egypt 299
Chap. XII, — The martyrs in Ceesarea in Palestine 302
Chap. XIII, — The peace under Gallienus 302
Chap. XIV. —The bishops that flourished at that time 303
Chap. XV. — The martyrdom of Marinus at Ctesarea 303
Chap. XVI. — Story in regard to Astyrius 304
78 THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
PAGE
Chap. XVII. — The signs at Paneas of the great might of our Saviour 304
Chap. XVIII. — The statue which the woman with an issue of blood erected 304
Chap. XIX. — The episcopal chair of James 305
Chap. XX. — The festal epistles of Dionysius, in which he also gives a paschal canon 305
Chap. XXI. — The occurrences at Alexandria ■ 305
Chap. XXII. — The pestilence which came upon them 306
Chap. XXIII. — The reign of Gallienus 307
Chap. XXIV. — Nepos, and his schism 308
Chap. XXV. — The apocalypse of John 309
Chap. XXVI. — The epistles of Dionysius 3"
Chap. XXVII. — Paul of Samosata, and the heresy introduced by him at Antioch , 312
Chap. XXVIII. — The illustrious bishops of that time 312
Chap. XXIX. — Paul, having been refuted by Malchion, a presbyter from the Sophists, was excommunicated. 313
Chap. XXX. — The epistle of the bishops against Paul 313
Chap. XXXI. — The perversive heresy of the Manichseans, which began at this time 316
Chap. XXXII. — The distinguished ecclesiastics of our day, and which of them survived until the destruction
of the churches 317
BOOK VIII.
Introduction 323
Chap. I. — The events which preceded the persecution in our times 323
Chap. II. — The destruction of the churches 324
Chap. III. — The nature of the conflicts endured in the persecution 325
Chap. IV. — The famous martyrs of God, who filled every place with their memory, and won various crowns
in behalf of religion 326
Chap. V. — Those in Nicomedia 326
Chap. VI. — Those in the palace 327
Chap. VII. — The Egyptians in Phoenicia 328
Chap. VIII. —Those in Egypt 329
Chap. IX. —Those in Thebais 329
Chap. X. — The writings of Phileas the martyr, describing the occurrences at Alexandria 330
Chap. XI. — Those in Phrygia 33^
Chap. XII. — Many others, both men and women, who suffered in various ways 332
Chap. XIII. — The bishops of the church, that evinced by their blood the genuineness of the religion which
they preached • 333
Chap. XIV. — The character of the enemies of rehgion 336
Chap. XV. — The events which happened to the heathen 338
Chap. XVI. — The change of affairs for the better 33^
Chap. XVII. — The revocation of the rulers 339
Appendix . . , , 34°
MARTYRS OF PALESTINE.
Chap. I 342
Chap. II 343
Chap. Ill 344
Chap, IV 345
CONTENTS. 79
PAGE
Chap. V 347
Chap. VI 347
Chap. VII 348
Chap. VIII 349
Chap. IX 350
Chap. X 351
Chap. XI 351
Chap. XII 354
Chap. XIII 354
BOOK IX.
Chap. I. — The pretended relaxation 357
Chap. II. — The subsequent reverse 358
Chap. III. — The newly erected statue at Antioch 359
Chap. IV. — The memorials against us 359
Chap. V. — The forged Acts 359
Chap. VI. — Those who suffered martyrdom at this time 360
Chap. VII. — The decrees against us which were engraved on pillars 360
Chap. VIII. — The misfortunes which happened in connection with these things, in famine, pestilence, and war 361
Chap. IX. — The victory of the God-beloved emperors 363
Chap. X. — The overthrow of the tyrants, and the words which they uttered before their death 366
Chap. XL — The final destruction of the enemies of religion 367
BOOK X.
Chap. I. — The peace granted us by God 369
Chap. II. — The restoration of the churches 370
Chap. III. — The dedications in every place 371
Chap. IV. — Panegyric on the splendor of affairs 371
Chap. V. — Copies of imperial laws 378
Chap. VI. — Copy of an imperial epistle in which money is granted to the churches 382
Chap. VII. — The exemption of the clergy : Copy of an epistle in which the emperor commands that the
rulers of the churches be exempted from all political duties 383
Chap. VIII. — The subsequent wickedness of Licinius, and his death 384
Chap. IX. — The victory of Constantine, and the blessings which under him accrued to the subjects of the
Roman empire 386
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS,
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I.
The Plan of the Work.
1 It is my purpose to write an account of
the successions of the holy apostles, as well
as of the times which have elapsed from the days
of our Saviour to our own ; and to relate the
many important events which are said to have
occurred in the history of the Church ; and to
mention those who have governed and presided
over the Church in the most prominent parishes,
and those who in each generation have pro-
claimed the divine word either orally or in
writing. It is my purpose also to give the names
and number and times of those who through
2 love of innovation have run into the greatest
errors, and, proclaiming themselves discov-
erers of knowledge falsely so-called,^ have like
fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock
of Christ. It is my intention, moreover, to re-
count the misfortunes which immediately came
upon the whole Jewish nation in conse-
3 quence of their plots against our Saviour,
and to record the ways and the times in
which the divine word has been attacked by the
Gentiles, and to describe the character of those
who at various periods have contended for it in
the face of blood and of tortures, as well as the
confessions which have been made in our own
days, and finally the gracious and kindly succor
which our Saviour has afforded them all. Since
I propose to write of all these things I shall
commence my work with the beginning of the
dispensation- of our Saviour and Lord Jesus
Christ.^
1 Cf. I Tim. vi. 20.
' Greek oixoi'oni.a. Suicer {Thesaiirjis Eccles.) points out
four uses of this word among ecclesiastical writers: (i) Ministe-
riHtn EvangfUi. (2) Providcniia ct iiunien (i.e. of God).
(3) Natune huDiaiiie assnintio, (4) Totiiis redcmptionis viys-
ierimi! ct passtoiiis Chrisii sacrameiitiim. Valesius says, " The
ancient Greeks use the word to denote whatever Christ did in the
world to proclaim salvation for the human race, and thus ftie first
oi/coi'ojiica ToO xpiiTToC is the incarnation, as the last oixoi-onia is
the passion." The word in the present case is used in its wide
sense to denote not simply the act of incarnation, but the whole
economy or dispensation of Christ upon earth. See the notes of
Heinichen upon this passage. Vol. III. p. 4 sq., and of Valesius,
Vol. I. p. 2.
3 Five MSS., followed by nearly all the editors of the Greek text
VOL. I.
But at the outset I must crave for my 4
work the indulgence of the wise,* for I con-
fess that it is beyond my power to produce a
perfect and complete history, and since I am
the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempt-
ing to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden
path.^ I pray that I may have God as my guide
and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I
am unable to find even the bare footsteps of
those who have traveled the way before me,
except in brief fragments, in which some in one
way, others in another, have transmitted to us
particular accounts of the times in which they
lived. From afar they raise their voices like
torches, and they cry out, as from some lofty
and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us
where to walk and how to direct the course of
our work steadily and safely. Having gath-
ered therefore from the matters mentioned 5
here and there by them whatever we con-
sider important for the present work, and having
plucked like flowers from a meadow the appro-
priate passages from ancient writers," we shall
endeavor to embody the whole in an historical
narrative, content if we preserve the memory of
and by the translators Stigloher and Cruse, read toO fleoi) after xnx-tj-
Tor. I'he words, however, are omitted by the majority of the best
JNISS. and by Rufinus, followed by Heinichen and Closs. (See the
note of Heinichen, Vol. I. p. 4).
■* All the MSS. followed by the majority of the editors read
eu7>'u)ju.oi'a)>', which must agree with Aoyos. Heinichen, however,
followed by Burton, Schwegler, Closs, and Stigloher, read euyviu-
fioi'ioi', which I have also accepted. Closs translates die Nachsicht
dcr Kenner ; Stigloher, mo/ilwolletide Nachsicht. Cruse avoids
the difficulty by omitting the word; an omission which is quite
unwarranted.
6 Eusebius is rightly called the " Father of Church History.
He had no predecessors who wrote, as he did, with a comprehen-
sive historical plan in view; and yet, as he tells us, much had been
written of which he made good use in his History. The one who
approached nearest to the idea of a Church historian was Hegesippus
(see Bk. IV. chap. 22, note i),but his writings were little more than
fragmentary memoirs, or collections of disconnected reminiscences.
For instance, Eusebius, in Bk. II. chap 23, quotes from his fifth and
List book the account of the martyrdom of James the Just, which
shows that his work lacked at least all chronological arrangement.
Julius Africanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 31, note i) also furnished Euse-
bius with much material in the line of chronology, and in his Chron-
icle Eusebius made free use of him. These are the only two who
can in any sense be said to have preceded Eusebius in his province,
and neither one can rob him of his right to be called the " Father of
Church History."
» One of the greatest values of Eusebius* History lies m the quo-
tations which it contains from earlier ecclesiastical writers. The
works of many of them are lost, and are known to us only through
the extracts made by Eusebius. This fact alone is enough to make
his History of inestimable worth.
82
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[I.I.
the successions of the apostles of our Saviour ;
if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned
of them in those churches which are the most
noted, and which even to the present time are
held in honor.
6 This work seems to me of especial im-
portance because I know of no ecclesiastical
writer who has devoted himself to this subject ;
and I hope that it will appear most useful to
those who are fond of historical research.
7 I have already given an epitome of these
things in the Chronological Canons " which
I have composed, but notwithstanding that, I
have undertaken in the present work to write as
full an account of them as I am able. My
8 work will begin, as I have said, with the
dispensation** of the Saviour Christ, — which
is loftier and greater than human conception,
— and with a discussion of his divinity";
9 for it is necessary, inasmuch as we derive
even our name from Christ, for one who
proposes to write a history of the Church to be-
gin with the very origin of Christ's dispensation,
a dispensation more divine than many think.
CHAPTER 11.
Siifmtiary Vieto of the Pre-existence atid Divin-
ity of Our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Since in Christ there is a twofold nature,
and the one — in so far as he is thought of
as God — resembles the head of the body, while
the other may be compared with the feet, — in
so far as he, for the sake of our salvation, put on
human nature with the same passions as our own,
— the following work will be complete only if
we begin with the chief and lordhest events of
all his history. In this way will the antiquity
and divinity of Christianity be shown to those
who suppose it of recent and foreign origin,'
and imagine that it appeared only yester-
2 day.^ No language is sufficient to express
' On Eusebius' Chronicle, see the Prolegomena, p. 31, above.
* oi/toro/u-ia. See above, note 2.
* BtoKoyia. Suicer gives four meanings for this word: (i) Doc-
trina de Deo. (2) Doctrina de SS. Trinitate. (3) Divina
Christi natura, sen doctriiia de ea. (4) Scripttira sacra jttri-
■usqiie Testamcnti. The word is used here in its third signification
(cf. also chap. 2, § 3, and Bk. V. chap. 28, § 5). It occurs very
frequently in the works of the Fathers with this meaning, especially
in connection with oiKovo/xia, which is then tiuite commonly used to
denote the "human nature" of Christ. In the present chapter
ot-Kovo^la. keeps throughout its more general signification of " the
Dispensation of Christ," and is not confined to the mere act of incar-
nation, nor to his " human nature."
1 via.v aviT))!' Kal iK-rf^-rotiia\j.ivr\v.
* This was one of the principal objections raised against Chris-
tianity. Antiquity was considered a prime requisite in a religion
which claimed to be true, and no reproach was greater than the
reproach of novelty. Hence the apologists laid great stress upon
the antiquity of Chri-itianity, and this was one reason why they
appropriated the Old Testament as a Christian book. Compare,
for instance, the apologies of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras,
Theophilus, Tertullian and Minucius Kelix, and the works of
Clement of Alexandria. See Kngelhardt's article on Kusebius, in
the Zeitschrift fur die hist. Theologie, 1852, p. 652 sq.; Schafi"'s
the origin and the worth, the being and the
nature of Christ. Wherefore also the divine
Spirit says in the prophecies, " Who shall declare
his generation ? " ^ For none knoweth the Father
except the Son, neither can any one know the
Son adequately except the Father alone who
hath begotten him.'* For who beside the
Father could clearly understand the Light 3
which was before the world, the intellectual
and essential Wisdom which existed before the
ages, the living AVord which was in the begin-
ning with the Father and which was God, the
first and only begotten of God which was before
every creature and creation visible and invisible,
the commander-in-chief of the rational and im-
mortal host of heaven, the messenger of the
great counsel, the executor of the Father's un-
spoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all
things, the second cause of the universe after
the Father, the true and only-begotten Son of
God, the Lord and God and King of all created
things, the one who has received dominion and
power, with divinity itself, and with might and
honor from the Father ; as it is said in regard
to him in the mystical passages of Scripture
which speak of his divinity : " In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God."^ "All things were made
by him ; and without him was not anything
made." ^ This, too, the great Moses teaches, 4
when, as the most ancient of all the proph-
ets, he describes under the influence of the
divine Spirit the creation and arrangement of the
universe. He declares that the maker of the
world and the creator of all things yielded to
Christ himself, and to none other than his own
clearly divine and first-born Word, the making of
inferior things, and communed with him respect-
ing the creation of man. " For," says he, " God
said. Let us make man in our image and in
our likeness."^ And another of the prophets 5
confirms this, speaking of God in his hymns
as follows : " He spake and they were made ; he
commanded and they were created." * He here
introduces the Father and Maker as Ruler of
all, commanding with a kingly nod, and second
to him the divine Word, none other than the
one who is proclaimed by us, as carrying out
Church History, Vol. II. p. no; and Tzschirner's Ceschichte der
Apologetik, p. 99 sq.
^ Isa. liii. 8. " John i. 3.
* Cf. Matt. xi. 27. ' Gen. i. 26.
^ John i. I.
8 Ps. xxxiii. 9. There is really nothing in this passage to imply
that the Psalmist thinks, as Eusebius supposes, of the Son as the
Father's agent in creation, who is here addressed by the Father.
As Stroth remarks, "According to Eusebius, ' He spake" is equiva-
lent to 'He said to the Son, Create"; and ' They were created'
means, according to him, not ' They arose immediately upon this
command of God,' but ' The Son was immediately obedient to the
command of the Father and produced them.' For Eusebius con-
nects this verse witli the sixth, ' liy the 7tH>rd ni the Lord were tl e
heavens made,' where he understands Christ to be referred to.
Perhaps this verse has been omitted in the Greek through an over-
sight, for it is found in Rufinus."
I. 2.]
PRE-EXISTENCE AND DIVINITY OE CHRIST.
S3
6 the Father's commands. All that are said
to have excelled in righteousness and piety
since the creation of man, the great servant Mo-
ses and before him in the first place Abraham
and his children, and as many righteous men and
prophets as afterward appeared, have contem-
plated him with the pure eyes of the mind, and
have recognized him and offered to him the
worship which is due him as Son of God.
7 But he, by no means neglectful of the rev-
erence due to the Father, was appointed to
teach the knowledge of the Father to them all.
For instance, the Lord God, it is said, appeared
as a common man to Abraham while he was sit-
ting at the oak of Mambre.'-* And he, immediately
falling down, although he saw a man with his
eyes, nevertheless worshiped him as God, and
sacrificed to him as Lord, and confessed that he
was not ignorant of his identity when he uttered
the words, " Lord, the judge of all the earth, wilt
thou not execute righteous judgment?"^"
8 For if it is unreasonable to suppose that the
unbegotten and immutable essence of the
almighty God was changed into the form of man,
or that it deceived the eyes of the beholders
with the appearance of some created thing, and
if it is unreasonable to sup]iose, on the other
hand, tliat the Scripture should falsely invent such
things, when the God and Lord who judgeth all
the earth and executeth judgment is seen in the
form of a man, who else can be called, if it be
not lawful to call him the first cause of all things,
than his only pre-existent Word?" Concern-
ing whom it is said in the Psalms, " He sent his
Word and healed them, and delivered them
9 from their destructions." ^^ Moses most
clearly proclaims him second Lord after the
Father, when he says, "The Lord rained upon
Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from
the Lord."^'^ The divine Scripture also calls him
God, when he appeared again to Jacob in the
form of a man, and said to Jacob, " Thy name
shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall
be thy name, because thou hast prevailed with
God." ^* Wherefore also Jacob called the name
of tliat place "Vision of God,"^ saying, "For I
have seen God face to face, and my life is
10 preserved." ^^ Nor is it admissible to sup-
poie that the theophanies recorded were
" See Gen. xviii. i sq. '" Gen. xviii. 25.
^' Eusebius accepts the common view of the early Church, that
the theophanies of the Old Testament were Christophanies; that is,
appearances of the second person of the Trinity. Augustine seems
to have been the first of the Fathers to take a different view, main-
taining that such Christophanies were not consistent with the iden-
tity of essence between Father and Son, and that the Scriptures
themselves teach that it was not the Logos, but an angel, that ap-
peared to the Old Testament worthies on various occasions (cf. De
Trill. III. 11). Augustine's opinion was widely adopted, but in
modern times the earlier view, which Eusebius represents, has been
the prevailing one (see Hodge, Systematic Theology, I. p. 490, and
Lange's article Theophatiy in Herzog).
^'- Ps. cvii. 20.
'^ Gen. xix. 24. 15 675o? Siov.
" Gen. xxxii. 28. ^"^ Gen. xxxii. 30.
G
appearances of subordinate angels and ministers
of God, for whenever any of these appeared
to men, the Scripture does not conceal the
fact, but calls them by name not (iod nor Lord,
but angels, as it is easy to prove by num-
berless testimonies. Joshua, also, the sue- 11
cessor of Moses, calls him, as leader of
the heavenly angels and archangels and of the
supramundane powers, and as lieutenant of
the Father,^' entrusted with the second rank of
sovereignty and rule over all, " captain of the
host of the Lord," although he saw him not
otherwise than again in the form and appear-
ance of a man. For it is written : " And it
came to pass when Joshua was at Jericho '*' 12
that he looked and saw a man standing
over against him with his sword drawn in his
hand, and Joshua went unto him and said. Art
thou for us or for our adversaries ? And he said
unto him, As captain of the host of the Lord am
I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the
earth and said unto him. Lord, what dost thou
command thy servant ? and the captain of the
Lord said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off
thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest
is holy." ^^ You will perceive also from the 13
same words that this was no other than he
who talked with ]Moses.'*^ For the Scripture
says in the same words and with reference to
the same one, "When the Lord saw that he
drew near to see, the Lord called to him out of
the bush and said, Moses, Moses. And he said.
What is it ? And he said, Draw not nigh hither ;
loose thy shoe from off thy feet, for the place
whereon thou standest is holy ground. And he
said unto him, I am the God of thy fathers, the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob. "-1
And that there is a certain substance 14
which lived and subsisted" before the world,
and which ministered unto the Father and God
of the universe for the formation of all created
things, and which is called the Word of God
and Wisdom, we may learn, to quote other
proofs in addition to those already cited, from
the mouth of Wisdom herself, who reveals most
clearly through Solomon the following mysteries
concerning herself: "I, Wisdom, have dwelt
^'' The MSS. differ greatly at this point. A number of them,
followed by Valesius, Closs, and Cruse, read, oxrai'el toO Trarpos
v-^a.(>xovTa Sviiaixtf zeal <ro<f)iai'. Schwegler, Laemmer, Burton,
.Tnd Heinichen adopt another reading which has some MS. support,
and which we have followed in our translation: uaavei ToiJ n-arpos
f.Tapvoi'. See Heinichen's edition. Vol. I. p. lo, note 41.
^^ ev 'lepi^w.
1" Josh. V. 13-15.
-" Eusebius agrees with other earlier Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr,
Origen, and Cyprian) in identifying the one that appeared to Joshua
with him that had appeared to Moses, on the ground that the same
words were used in both cases (cf. especially Justin's Dial. c.
Trypho, chap. 62). Many later Fathers (e.g. Theodoret) regard the
jierson that appeared to Joshua as the archangel Michael, who is
described by Paniel (x. 21 and xii. i) as fighting for the people ol
God. See Keil's Cfliiiiiientary on Joshua, chap. 5, vv. 13-15-
-' Ex. iii. 4-6. Cf. Justin's Dial., chap. 63.
"- ovtxia Tt5 TT poKoa ixtof; C^oaa /cat v^ecrruxra.
84
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[1.2.
with prudence and knowledge, and I have in-
voked understanding. Through me kings reign,
and princes ordain righteousness. Through me
the great are magnified, and through me
15 sovereigns rule the earth." -^ To which she
adds : " The Lord created me in the begin-
ning of his ways, for his works ; before the
world he established me, in the beginning, be-
fore he made the earth, before he made the
depths, before the mountains were settled, before
all hills he begat me. When he prepared the
heavens I was present with him, and wlien he
established the fountains of the region under
heaven ^^ I was with him, disposing. I was the
one in whom he delighted ; daily I rejoiced be-
fore him at all times when he was rejoicing
16 at having completed the world." -^ That
the divine Word, therefore, pre-existed,
and appeared to some, if not to all, has thus
been briefly shown by us.
17 But why the Gospel was not preached
in ancient times to all men and lo all
nations, as it is now, will appear from the follow-
ing considerations.-" The life of the ancients
was not of such a kind as to permit them to
receive the all-wise and all-virtuous teaching
18 of Christ. For immediately in the begin-
ning, after his original life of blessedness,
the first man despised the command of God,
and fell into this mortal and perishable state,
and exchanged his former divinely inspired
luxury for this curse-laden earth. His descend-
ants having filled our earth, showed themselves
much worse, with the exception of one here and
there, and entered upon a certain brutal and
insupportable mode of life. They thought
19 neither of city nor state, neither of arts nor
sciences. They were ignorant even of the
name of laws and of justice, of virtue and of
philosophy. As nomads, they passed their lives
in deserts, like wild and fierce beasts, destroy-
ing, by an excess of voluntary wickedness, the
natural reason of man, and the seeds of thought
and of culture implanted in the human soul.
They gave themselves wholly over to all kinds
of profanity, now seducing one another, now
slaying one another, now eating human flesh,
and now daring to wage war with the Gods and
to undertake those battles of the giants cele-
brated by all ; now planning to fortify earth
against heaven, and in the madness of un-
23 Prov. viii. 12, 15, 16.
2« T^s VK ovpaioy, with all the MSS. and the I,XX., followed by
Schwegler, Burton, Heinichen, and others. Some editors, in agree-
ment with the version of Rufiniis i^fontes sub ccelo), read ras i"r'
oiipavov. Closs, Stigloher, and Crust translate in the same way.
2'' Prov. viii. 22-25, 27, 28, 30, 31.
2" Eusebius pursues much the same line of argument in his Dent.
Evang:, Prrcm. Bk. VIII.; and compare also Gregory of Nyssa's
Third Oration on the birth of the Lord (at the beginning). The
objection which Eusebius undertakes to answer here was an old
one, and had been considered by Justin Martyr, by Origen in bis
work against Celsus, and by others (sec Tzscnirner's Geschichtc
tier Afiologetik, p. 25 ff.).
governed pride to prepare an attack upon the
very God of all.-'^
On account of these things, when they 20
conducted themselves thus, the all-seeing
God sent down upon them floods and conflagra-
tions as upon a wild forest spread over the
whole earth. He cut them down with contin-
uous famines and plagues, with wars, and with
thunderbolts from heaven, as if to check some
terrible and obstinate disease of souls with
more severe punishments. Then, when the 21
excess of wickedness had overwhelmed
nearly all the race, like a deep fit of drunkenness,
beclouding and darkening the minds of men,
the first-born and first-created wisdom of God,
the pre-existent Word himself, induced by his
exceeding love for man, appeared to his ser-
vants, now in the form of angels, and again to
one and another of those ancients who enjoyed
the favor of God, in his own person as the sav-
ing power of God, not otherwise, however, than
in the shape of man, because it was im-
possible to appear in any other way. And 22
as by them the seeds of piety were sown
among a multitude of men and the whole nation,
descended from the Hebrews, devoted them-
selves persistently to the worship of God, he
imparted to them through the prophet Moses,
as to multitudes stiU corrupted by their ancient
practices, images and symbols of a certain mys-
tic Sabbath and of circumcision, and elements
of other spiritual principles, but he did not
grant them a complete knowledge of the
mysteries themselves. But when their law 23
became celebrated, and, like a sweet odor,
was diffused among all men, as a result of their
influence the dispositions of the majority of the
heathen were softened by the lawgivers and phi-
losophers who arose on every side, and their
wild and savage brutality was changed into mild-
ness, so that they enjoyed deep peace, friend-
ship, and social intercourse.-'^ Then, finally, at
the time of the origin of the Roman Empire, there
appeared again to all men and nations through-
out the world, who had been, as it were, pre-
viously assisted, and were now fitted to receive
the knowledge of the Father, that same teacher
-~' The reference here seems to be to the building of the tower
of Babel (Gen. ,\i. i-o), although Valesius thinks otherwise. The
fact that Eusebius refers to the battles of the giants, which were
celebrated in heathen song, docs not militate ag.ainst a reference in
this passage to the narrative recounted in (Jencsis. He illustrates
the presumption of the human race by instances familiar to his
readers whether drawn from Christian or from Pagan sources.
Compare the I'rirp. Eva}ig. ix. 14.
-" It was the opinion of Eusebius, in common with most of the
Fathers, that the Greek philosophers, lawgivers, and poets had ob-
tained their wisdom from the ancient Hebrews, and this point was
pressed very stnmgly by many of the apologists in their effort to
prove the antiquity of Christianity. The assertion was made espe-
cially in the case of Plato and Pythagoras, who were said to have
become acquainted with the books of the Hebrews upon their journey
to Egypt. Compare among other i>assages Justin's .//d/. 1. 59 fl;
Clement of Ale.vandria's Cohort, ad Geiitfs, chap. 6; and Tertulli-
an's Apol. chap. 47. Compare also Eusebius' J'ri/J>. Evaiig., I'.ks.
IX. and X.
I- 3-1
THE NAMES JESUS AND CHRIST IN SCRIPTURE.
85
of virtue, the minister of the Father in all good
things, the divine and heavenly Word of God, in a
human body not at all differing in substance from
our own. He did and suffered the things which
had been prophesied. For it had been foretold
that one who was at the same time man and God
should come and dwell in the world, should per-
form wonderful works, and should show himself a
teacher to all nations of the piety of the Father.
The marvelous nature of his birth, and his new
teaching, and his wonderful works had also
been foretold ; so likewise the manner of his
death, his resurrection from the dead, and,
finally, his divine ascension into heaven.
24 For instance, Daniel the prophet, under the
influence of the divine Spirit, seeing his
kingdom at the end of time,'-'" was inspired thus
to describe the divine vision in language fitted
to human comprehension : " For I beheld," he
says, " until thrones were placed, and the Ancient
of Days did sit, whose garment was white as
snow and the hair of his head like pure wool ;
his throne was a flame of fire and his wheels
burning fire. A river of fire flowed before him.
Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before
him. He appointed judgment, and the
25 books were opened." '^^ And again, "I
saw," says he, " and behold, one like the
Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,
and he hastened unto the Ancient of Days and
was brought into his presence, and there was
given him the dominion and the glory and the
kingdom ; and all peoples, tribes, and tongues
serve him. His dominion is an everlasting do-
minion which shall not pass away, and his
26 kingdom shall not be destroyed." ^^ It is
clear that these words can refer to no one
else than to our Saviour, the God Word who
was in the beginning with God, and who was
called the Son of man because of his final
27 appearance in the flesh. But since we have
collected in separate books ^" the selections
from the prophets which relate to our Saviour
Jesus Christ, and have arranged in a more logi-
cal form those things which have been revealed
concerning him, what has been said will suffice for
the present.
CHAPTER III.
The Name Jesus and also the Name Christ were
known from the Beginning, and lucre honored
by the Inspired Prophets.
1 It is now the proper place to show that
the very name Jesus and also the name
-■' The Greek has only eVl re'Aei, which can refer, however, only
to the end of time or to the end of the worlj .
■"' Dan. vii. 9, 10. ^^ Dan. vii. 13, 14.
•*- Eiisebins refers here probably to his Eclogce propheticie, or
Prophetical Extracts, possibly to his Detn. Evang.; upon these
works see the Prolegomena, p. 34 and 37, above.
Christ were honored by the ancient proph-
ets beloved of God.^ Moses was the first 2
to make known the name of Christ as a
name especially august and glorious. When he
delivered types and symbols of heavenly things,
and mysterious images, in accordance with the
oracle which said to him, " Look that thou make
all things according to the pattern which was
shown thee in the mount," ^ he consecrated a
man high priest of God, in so far as that was
possible, and him he called Christ.'^ And thus
to this dignity of the high priesthood, which in
his opinion surpassed the most honorable posi-
tion among men, he attached for the sake of
honor and glory the name of Christ. He 3
knew so well that in Christ was something
divine. And the same one foreseeing, under the
influence of the divine Spirit, the name Jesus, dig-
nified it also with a certain distinguished privi-
lege. For the name of Jesus, which had never
been uttered among men before the time of
Moses, he applied first and only to the one who
he knew would receive after his death, again as
a type and symbol, the supreme command.
His successor, therefore, who had not hith- 4
erto borne the name Jesus, but had been
called by another name, Auses,* which had been
given him by his parents, he now called Jesus,
bestowing the name upon him as a gift of honor,
far greater than any kingly diadem. For Jesus
himself, the son of Nave, bore a resemblance
to our Saviour in the fact that he alone, after
Moses and after the completion of the symboli-
cal worship which had been transmitted by him,
succeeded to the government of the true
and pure religion. Thus Moses bestowed 5
the name of our Saviour, Jesus Christ,
as a mark of the highest honor, upon the two
men who in his time surpassed all the rest of
the people in virtue and glory ; namely, upon
the high priest and upon his own successor
in the government. And the prophets that 6
came after also clearly foretold Christ by
name, predicting at the same time the plots
which the Jewish people would form against
him, and the calling of the nations through him.
Jeremiah, for instance, speaks as follows : " The
^ Compare the Dem. Evang. iv. 17.
2 Ex. XXV. 40.
3 " Eusebius here has in mind the passages Lev. iv. 5, 16, and vi.
22, where the LXX. reads 6 iepei/s 6 xf>l(J^6•;•. The priest, the
a)ioiiited one" (Closs). The Authorized Version reads, The priest
that was atioitited ; the Revised Version, The anointed priest.
•* A few MSS., followed by Laemmer and Heinichen, read here
Naujj, but the best MSS. followed by the majority of editors read
' kvnr], which is a corruption of the name Oshea, which means
" Salvation," and which Joshua bore before his name was changed,
by the addition of a syllable, to Jehoshua=Joshua= Jesus, meaning
"God's salvation" (Num. xiii. 16). Jerome {de vir. ill. c. I.)
speaks of this corruption as existing in Greek and Latin MSS. of the
Scriptures, and as having no sense, and contends that Osee is the
proper form, Osee meaning " Salvator." The same corruption
(Auses) occurs also in Tertullian, Adi'. Marc. iii. 16, and Adv.
Jnd. 9 (where the English translator, as Cruse also does in the pres-
ent passage, in both cases departs from the original, and renders
'Oshea,' Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. IIL p. 334, 335> and
I 163), and in Lactantius, Institutes, iv. 17.
86
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[I-
Spirit before our face, Christ the Lord, was taken
in their destructions ; of whom we said, under his
shadow we shall live among the nations."^ And
David, in perplexity, says, " 'Why did the nations
rage and the people imagine vain things ? The
kings of the earth set themselves in array, and
the rulers were gathered together against the
Lord and against his Christ " ; ^ to which he adds,
in the person of Christ himself, "The Lord said
unto me. Thou art my Son, this day have I be-
gotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the
nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost
parts of the earth for thy possession." ''
7 And not only those who were honored with
the high priesthood, and who for the sake
of the symbol were anointed Avith especially
prepared oil, were adorned with the name of
Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings
whom the prophets anointed under the influence
of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it
were, typical Christs. For they also bore in their
own persons types of the royal and sovereign
power of the true and only Christ, the
8 divine Word who ruleth over all. And we
have been told also that certain of the
prophets themselves became, by the act of
anointing, Christs in type, so that all these have
reference to the true Christ, the divinely inspired
and heavenly Word, who is the only high priest
of all, and the only King of every creature, and
the Father's only supreme prophet of propli-
9 ets. And a proof of this is that no one of
those who were of old symbolically anointed,
whether priests, or kings, or prophets, possessed
so great a power of inspired virtue as was ex-
hibited by our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the
10 true and only Christ. None of them at
least, however superior in dignity and honor
they may have been for many generations among
their own people, ever gave to their followers
tlie name of Christians from their own typical
name of Christ. Neither was divine honor ever
rendered to any one of them by their subjects ;
nor after their death was the disposition of their
followers such that they were ready to die for
the one whom they honored. And never did so
great a commotion arise among all the nations
of the earth in respect to any one of that age ;
for the mere symbol could not act with such
l)ower among them as the truth itself which
11 was exhibited by our Saviour. He, although
he received no symbols and types of high
priesthood from any one, although he was not
born of a race of priests, although he was not
elevated to a kingdom by military guards,
although he was not a prophet like those of old,
although he obtained no honor nor pre-eminence
among the Jews, nevertheless was adorned by
the l"'ather with all, if not with the symbols,
^ Sam. iv. 20.
" Ps. ii. I, 2.
' Ps. ii. 7, 8.
yet with the truth itself. And therefore, 12
although he did not possess like honors with
those whom we have mentioned, he is called
Christ more than all of them. And as himself
the true and only Christ of God, he has filled
the whole earth with the truly august and sacred
name of Christians, committing to his followers
no longer types and images, but the uncovered
virtues themselves, and a heavenly life in
the very doctrines of truth. And he was not 13
anointed with oil prepared from material
substances, but, as befits divinity, with the divine
Spirit himself, by participation in the unbegotten
deity of the Father. And this is taught also
again by Isaiah, who exclaims, as if in the person
of Christ himself, "The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me ; therefore hath he anointed me. He
hath sent me to preach the Gospel to the poor,
to proclaim deliverance to captives, and re-
covery of sight to the blind." ^ And not only 14
Isaiah, but also David addresses him, say-
ing, " Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.
A scepter of equity is the scepter of thy king-
dom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hast
hated iniquity. Therefore God, thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
fellows."'* Here the Scripture calls him God in
the first verse, in the second it honors him
with a royal scepter. Then a little farther 15
on, after the divine and royal power, it rep-
resents him in the third place as having become
Christ, being anointed not with oil made of
material substances, but with the divine oil of
gladness. It thus indicates his especial honor,
far sui^erior to and different from that of those
who, as types, were of old anointed in a
more material way. And elsewhere the 16
same writer speaks of him as follows : " The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right
hand until I make thine enemies thy foot-
stool";^" and, " Out of the womb, before the
morning star, have I begotten thee. The Lord
hath sworn and he will not repent. Thou art a
])riest forever after the order of Mclchize-
dec."" But this Melchizedec is introducetl 17
in the Holy Scriptures as a priest of the
most high God,^- not consecrated by any anoint-
ing oil, especially prepared, and not even be-
longing by descent to the priesthood of the
Jews. \Vherefore after his order, but not after
the order of the others, who received symbols
and t}-pes, was our Saviour proclaimed, with
an appeal to an oath, Christ and priest.
History, therefore, does not relate that he 10
was anointed corporeally by the Jews, nor
" Isa. l.\i. I. Eiisebius as usual follows the LXX., which in thi'-,
case diflTer-; somewhat from the Hehrew, and hence the translation
differs from t!ic Knglish version. The LXX., however, contains an
cxtri clause which Eusebius omits. See Heinichen's edition,
Vol. T. p. 21, note 49.
" Ps. xlv. 6, 7. 1" Ps. ex. I. " Ps. ex. 4,
1- See Gen. xiv. i8; Heb. v. 6, lo; vi. 20; viii.
1.4-]
ANTIQUITY OF CHRISTIANITY.
87
that he belonged to the Hncage of priests, but
that he came into existence from God himself
before the morning star, that is before the or-
ganization of the world, and that he obtained
an immortal and undecaying priesthood for
19 eternal ages. But it is a great and con-
vincing proof of his incorporeal and divine
unction that he alone of all those who have ever
existed is even to the present day called Christ
by all men throughout the world, and is con-
fessed and witnessed to under this name, and is
commemorated both by Greeks and Barbarians,
and even to this day is honored as a King by
his followers throughout the world, and is ad-
mired as more than a prophet, and is glorified
as the true and only high priest of God.^^ And
besides all this, as the pre-existent ^Vord of God,
called into being before all ages, he has received
august honor from the Father, and is wor-
20 shiped as God. But most wonderful of all
is the fact that we who have consecrated
ourselves to him, honor him not only with our
voices and with the sound of words, but also
with complete elevation of soul, so that we
choose to give testimony unto him rather than
to preserve our own lives.
21 I have of necessity prefaced my history
with these matters in order that no one,
judging from the date of his incarnation, may
think that our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the Christ,
has but recently come into being.
CHAPTER IV.
The Religion proclaimed by him to All Nations
was neither New nor Strange.
1 But that no one may suppose that his
doctrine is new and strange, as if it were
framed by a man of recent origin, differing in
no respect from other men, let us now briefly
2 consider this point also. It is admitted that
when in recent times the appearance of our
Saviour Jesus Christ had become known to all
men there immediately made its appearance a
new nation ; a nation confessedly not small, and
not dwelling in some corner of the earth, but
the most numerous and pious of all nations,^ in-
destructible and unconquerable, because it always
receives assistance from God. This nation, thus
suddenly appearing at the time appointed by
the inscrutable counsel of God, is the one which
has been honored by all with the name of
3 Christ. One of the prophets, when he saw
beforehand with the eye of the Divine Spirit
'•' Eusebius, in this chapter and in the Dein. Evang. IV. 15, is
the first of the Fathers to mention the three offices of Christ.
» Cf. Tertullian, Apol. XXXVII. {Aiite-Nicenc Fathers, Am.
Ed. Vol. III. p. 45).
that which was to be, was so astonished at it that
he cried out, "Who hath heard of such things,
and who hath spoken thus? Hath the earth
brought forth in one day, and hath a nation been
born at once?"" And the same prophet gives a
hint also of the name by which the nation was
to be called, when he says, " Those that serve me
shall be called by a new name, which shall
be blessed upon the earth." ^ But although 4
it is clear that we are new and that this new
name of Christians has really but recently been
known among all nations, nevertheless our life
and our conduct, with our doctrines of religion,
have not been lately invented by us, but from
the first creation of man, so to speak, have been
established by the natural understanding of
divinely favored men of old. That this is
so we shall show in the following way. That 5
the Hebrew nation is not new, but is uni-
versally honored on account of its antiquity, is
known to all. The books and writings of this
people contain accounts of ancient men, rare
indeed and few in number, but nevertheless dis-
tinguished for piety and righteousness and every
other virtue. Of these, some excellent men
lived before the flood, others of the sons and
descendants of Noah lived after it, among them
Abraham, whom the Hebrews celebrate as
their own founder and forefather. If any 6
one should assert that all those who have
enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from
Abraham himself back to the first man, were
Christians in fact if not in name, he would
not go beyond the truth.'* For that which 7
the name indicates, that the Christian man,
through the knowledge and the teaching of
Christ, is distinguished for temperance and
righteousness, for patience in life and manly
virtue, and for a profession of piety toward the
one and only God over all — all that was zeal-
ously practiced by them not less than by us.
They did not care about circumcision of 8
the body, neither do we. They did not
care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They
did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did
they regard the other distinctions which Moses
first delivered to their posterity to be observed
as symbols ; nor do Christians of the present
day do such things. But they also clearly knew
the very Christ of God ; for it has already been
shown that he appeared unto Abraham, that he
imparted revelations to Isaac, that he talked with
Jacob, that he held converse with Moses and
with the prophets that came after. Hence 9
you will find those divinely favored men
honored with the name of Christ, according to
the passage which says of them, "Touch not
my Christs, and do my prophets no harm."^
- Isa. Ixvi. 8. ■• Compare Justin INIartyr's Apol. I. 46.
3 Isa. Ixv. 15, 16. ^ I Chron. xvi. 22, and Ps. cv. 15.
S8
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[1.4.
10 So that it is clearly necessary to consider
that religion, which has lately been preached
to all nations through the teaching of Christ, the
first and most ancient of all religions, and the
one discovered by those divinely favored
11 men in the age of Abraham. If it is said
that Abraham, a long time afterward, was
given the command of circumcision, we reply
that nevertheless before this it was declared that
he had received the testimony of righteousness
through faith ; as the divine word says, " Abra-
ham believed in God, and it was counted
12 unto him for righteousness." " And indeed
unto Abraham, who was thus before his
circumcision a justified man, there was given by
God, who revealed himself unto him (but this
was Christ himself, the word of God), a proph-
ecy in regard to those who in coming ages
should be justified in the same way as he. The
prophecy was in the following words : " And in
ihee shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed,""
And again, " He shall become a nation great
and numerous ; and in him shall all the
13 nations of the earth be blessed."* It is
permissible to understand this as fulfilled
in us. For he, having renounced the supersti-
tion of his fathers, and the former error of his
life, and having confessed the one God over all,
and having worshiped him with deeds of virtue,
and not with the service of the law which was
afterward given by Moses, was justified by faith
in Christ, the Word of God, who appeared unto
him. To him, then, who was a man of this
character, it was said that all the tribes and all
the nations of the earth should be blessed
14 in him. But that very religion of Abraham
has reappeared at the present time, prac-
ticed in deeds, more efficacious than words,
by Christians alone throughout the world.
15 What then should prevent the confession
that we who are of Christ practice one and
the same mode of life and have one and the
same religion as those divinely favored men of
old? Whence it is evident that the perfect
religion committed to us by the teaching of
Christ is not new and strange, but, if the truth
must be spoken, it is the first and the true re-
ligion. This may suffice for this subject.
CHAPTER V.
77ie Time of his Appearance a/nojig Men.
1 And now, after this necessary introduc-
tion to our proposed history of the Church,
* Gen. XV. 6.
' Gen. xii. 3.
" Gen. xviii. 18
we can enter, so to speak, upon our journey,
beginning with the appearance of our Saviour
in the flesh. And we invoke God, the Father
of the Word, and him, of whom we have been
speaking, Jesus Christ himself our Saviour and
Lord, the heavenly Word of God, as our aid
and fellow-laborer in the narration of the
truth.
It was in the forty-second year of the 2
reign of Augustus ^ and the twenty-eighth
after the subjugation of Egypt and the death
of Antony and Cleopatra, with whom the
dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt came to an
end, that our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ
was born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to
the prophecies which had been uttered concern-
ing him." His birth took place during the first
census, while Cyrenius was governor of
Syria.^ Flavius Josephus, the most cele- 3
brated of Hebrew historians, also mentions
this census,'' which was taken during Cyrenius'
1 Eusebius here makes the reign of Augustus begin with the
death of Julius Caesar (as Josephus does in chap. 9, § i, below),
and he puts the birth of Christ therefore into the year 752 u.c.
(2 n.c), which agrees with Clement of Alexandria's Strom. I.
(who gives the twenty-eighth year after the conquest of Egypt as
the birth-year of Christ), with Epiphanius, Uar. LI. 22, and Oro-
sius, Hist. I. I. Eusebius gives the same date also in his Chron.
(ed. Schoene, II. p. 144). Irenseus, III. 25, and Tertullian, ^a'z'.
Jud. 8, on the other hand, give the forty-first year of Augustus,
751 u.c. (3 B.C.). But all these dates are certainly too late. The
true year of Christ's birth has always been a matter of dispute.
But it must have occurred before the death of Herod, which
took place in the spring of 750 u.c. (4 B.C.). The most widely
accepted opinion is that Christ was born late in the year 5, or early
in the year 4 B.C., though some scholars put the date back as far as
7 B.C.
The time of the year is also uncertain, the date commonly ac-
cepted in the Occident (Dec. 25th) having nothing older than a
fourth century tradition in its favor. The date accepted by the
Greek Church (Jan. 6th) rests upon a somewhat older tradition, but
neither day has any claim to reliability.
For a full and excellent discussion of this subject, see the essay
of Andrews in his Life of our Lord, pp. 1-22. See, also, Schaff's
Church Hist. I. p. 98 sq.
- Micah V. 2.
s Cf. Luke ii. 2.
Quirinius is the original Latin form of the name of which Luke
gives the Greek form Kup^nos or Cyrenius (which is the form given
also by Eusebius).
The statement of Luke presents a chronological difficulty which
has not yet been completely solved. Quirinius we know to have
been made governor of Syria in a.d. 6; and under him occurred a
census or enrollment mentioned by Josephus, Ant. XVII. 13. 5, and
XVIII. I. I. This is undoubtedly the same as that referred
to in Acts V. 37. But this took place some ten years after the
birth of Christ, and cannot therefore be connected with that event.
Many explanations have been offered to account for the difficulty,
but since the discovery of Zumpt, the problem has been much sim-
plified. He, as also IMommsen, has proved that Quirinius was
twice governor of Syria, the first time from B.C. 4 (autimin) to B.C. i.
But as Christ must have been born before the spring of n.c. 4, the
governorship of Quirinius is still a little too late. A solution of
the question is thus approached, however, though not all the
difficulties are yet removed. Upon this question, sec especially
A. M. Zumpt, Da.<! Geburtsjahr Christi (Leipzig, 1869), and
compare Schaff's Church Hist., I. 121-125, for a condensed but
excellent account of the whole matter, and for the literature of
the subject.
< Eusebius here identifies the census mentioned by Josephus
{Atit. XVIII. I. i) and rcfj^-red to in Acts v. 37, with the one men-
tioned in Luke ii. 2; but this is an obvious error, as an interval of
ten years separated the two. Valesius considers it all one census,
and hence regards Eusebius as correct in his statement ; but this is
very improb.ible. Jachmann (in Illgen's Zeitschrift /. hist. Theol-
ogie, 1839, !'• P- 35 sq.), according to his custom, charges Eusebius
with willful deception and perversion of the facts. But such a charge
is utterly without warrant. Eusebius, in cases where we can con-
trol his statements, can be shown to have been always conscientious.
Moreover, in his Cliroji. (ed. Schoene II. p. 144) he identifies the two
censuses in the same way. But his Chronicles were written some
years before his History, and he cannot have had any object to de-
I. 6.]
THE TIME OF CHRIST'S NATIVITY.
89
term of ofifice. In the same connection he
gives an account of the uprising of the Galile-
ans, which took place at that time, of which
also Luke, among our writers, has made men-
tion in the Acts, in the following words : " After
this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days
of the taxing, and drew away a nmltitude ''
after him : he also perished ; and all, even
4 as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.'"'
The above-mentioned author, in the eigh-
teenth book of his Antiquities, in agreement
with these words, adds the following, which we
quote exactly : " Cyrenius, a member of the
senate, one who had hekl other offices and had
passed through them all to the consulship, a
man also of great dignity in other respects,
came to Syria with a small retinue, being sent
by Caisar to be a judge of the nation and
5 to make an assessment of their property."^
And after a little ^ he says : " But Judas,"
a Gaulonite, from a city called Gamala, taking
with him Sadduchus,^" a Pharisee, urged the
people to revolt, both of them saying that the
taxation meant nothing else than downright
slavery, and exhorting the nation to defend
6 their liberty," And in the second book of
his History of the Jewish War, he writes
as follows concerning the same man : " At this
time a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas,
persuaded his countrymen to revolt, declaring
that they were cowards if they submitted to
pay tribute to the Romans, and if they endured.
ceive in them such as Jachmann assumes that he had in his History.
It is plain that Eusebius has simply made a blunder, a thing not at
all surprising when we remember how frequent his chronological
errors are. He is guilty of an inexcusable piece of carelessness, but
nothing worse. It was natural to connect the two censuses men-
tioned as taking place under the same governor, though a little
closer attention to the facts would have shown him the discrepancy
in date, which he simply overlooked.
''The New Testament i^Textus Rcc.) reads Kaov ixai'oi', with
which Laemmer agrees in his edition of Eusebius. Two MSS., fol-
lowed by Stephanus and Valesius, and by the English and German
translators, read Kaov ito\vv. All the other MSS. and editors, as
well as Rufinus, read Aaoi' alone.
'' Acts V. 37.
' Josephus, A?it. XVIII. i. i. Upon Josephus and his works,
see below, Bk. III. c. 9. s Ibid.
'■> Judas the Gaulonite. In Acts v. 37, and in Josephus, B. y. II.
8. 1 (quoted just below), and 17. 8, and in Ant. XVIII. 1.6 and XX.
5. 2, he is called Judas of Galilee. But in the present section Jose-
phus gives the fullest and most accurate account of him. Gaulo-
nitis lay east of the Jordan, opposite Galilee. Judas of Galilee was
probably his common designation, given to him either because his
revolt took rise in Galilee, or because Galilee was used as a general
term for the north country. He was evidently a man of position
and great personal influence, and drew vast numbers to his standard,
denouncing, in the name of religion, the payment of tribute to
Rome and all submission to a foreign yoke. The revolt spread
very rapidly, and the whole country was thrown into excitement
and disorder; but the Romans proved too strong for him, and
he soon perished, and his followers were dispersed, though many
of them continued active until the final destruction of the city.
The influence of Judas was so great and lasted so long that Jose-
phus {Ant. XVIII. I. I and 6) calls the tendency represented by
him the " fourth philosophy of the Jews," ranking it with Phari-
saism, Sadduceeism, and Essenism. The distinguishing character-
istic of this " fourth philosophy " or sect was its love of freedom.
For an excellent account of Judas and his revolt, see Ewald's
Geshichte dcs I'olkcs Israel, V. p. 16 sq.
^" Greek, 2a56oxot'; Rufinus, Sadduchunt. He, too, must
have been a man of influence and position. Later in the same para-
graph he is made by Josephus a joint founder with Judas of the
" fourth philosophy," but in § 6 of the same chapter, where the
author of it is referred to, Judas alone is mentioned.
besides God, masters who were mortal.""
These things are recorded by Josephus.
CHAPTER VI.
About the Time of Clirist, in accordance with
Prophecy, the Rulers who had governed the
Jcwisli Nation in Regular Succession from
the Days of Antiquity came to an End, and
Herod, the First Foreigner, became King.
When Herod,' the first ruler of foreign 1
blood, became King, the prophecy of Moses
received its fulfillment, according to which there
should " not be wanting a prince of Judah, nor
a ruler from his loins, until he come for whom
it is reserved." " The latter, he also shows, was
to be the expectation of the nations.''
This prediction remained unfulfilled so 2
long as it was permitted them to live under
rulers from their own nation, that is, from the
time of Moses to the reign of Augustus. Under
the latter, Herod, the first foreigner, was given
the Kingdom of the Jews by the Romans. As
Josephus relates,'* he was an Idumean ^ on his
father's side and an Arabian on his mother's.
But Africanus," who was also no common writer,
says that they who were more accurately in-
formed about him report that he was a son of
Antipater, and that the latter was the son of a
certain Herod of Ascalon,^ one of the so-called
11 Josephus, 5. 7. II. 8. I.
1 Herod the Great, son of Antipater, an Idumean, who had
been appointed procurator of Judca by Caesar in B.C. 47. Herod was
made governor of Galilee at the same time, and king of Judea by
the Roman Senate in n.c. 40.
- Gen. .\lix. 10. The LXX., which Eusebius quotes here, accord-
ing to his custom, is in the present instance somewhat different from
the Hebrew. s Ibid.
* Eusebius refers here to .Ant. XIV. i. 3 and 7. 3. According
to Josephus, Herod's father was Antipater, and his mother Cypros,
an Arabian woman of noble birth.
■"' The Idumeans or Edomites were the descendants of Esau, and
inhabited the Sinaitic peninsula south of the Dead Sea. Their prin-
cipal city and stronghold was the famous rock city, Petra. They
were constant enemies of the Jews, refused them free passage
through their land (Num. .\-x. 20) ; were conquered by Saul and
David, but again regained their independence, until they were fin-
ally completely subjugated by John Hyrcanus, who left them in
possession of their land, but compelled them to undergo circum-
cision, and adopt the Jewish law. Compare Josephus, .(4«^. XIII. 9.
i; XV. 7. 9; B. 7. IV. 5. 5.
" On Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31. This account is given by
Africanus in his epistle to Aristides, quoted by Eusebius in the next
chapter. Africanus states there (§ 11) that the account, as he gives
it, was handed down by the relatives of the Lord. But the tradi-
tion, whether much older than Africanus or not, is certainly incci-
rect. We learn from Josephus (.4nt. XIV. 2), who is the best wit-
ness upon this subject, that Antipater, the father of Herod the Great,
was the son of another Antipater, or Antipas, an Idumean who had
been made governor of Idumea by the Jewish king Alexander Jan-
Uc-eus (of the Maccabaean family). In Ant. XVI. 11 Josephus in-
forms us that a report had been invented by friends and flatterers of
Herod that he was descended from Jewish ancestors. The report
originated with Nicolai Damasceni, a writer of the tirne of the
Herods. The tradition preserved here by Africanus had its origin,
evidently, in a desire to degrade Herod by representing him as de-
scended from a slave.
' Ascalon, one of the five cities of the Philistines (mentioned
frequently in the Old Testament), lay upon the Mediterranean Sea,
between Gaza and Joppa. It was beautified by Herod (although
not belonging to his dominions), and after his death became the
residence of his sister Salome. It was a prominent place in the
Middle Ages, but is now in ruins. Of this Herod of Ascalon nothing
is known. Possibly no such man existed.
90
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[1.6.
3 servants ^ of the temple of Apollo. This
Antipater, having been taken a prisoner while
a boy by Idumean robbers, lived with them, be-
cause his father, being a poor man, was unable
to pay a ransom for him. Growing up in their
practices he was afterward befriended by Hyrca-
nus,''' the high priest of the Jews. A son of his
was that Herod who lived in the times of
4 our Saviour." When the Kingdom of the
Jews had devolved upon such a man the
expectation of the nations was, according to
])rophecy, already at the door. For with him
their princes and governors, who had ruled in
regular succession from the time of Moses,
5 came to an end. Before their captivity and
their transportation to Babylon they were
ruled by Saul first and then by David, and be-
fore the kings leaders governed them who were
called Judges, and who came after Moses
G and his successor Jesus. After their return
from Babylon they continued to have with-
out interruption an aristocratic form of govern-
ment, with an oligarchy. For the priests had
the direction of affairs until Pompey, the Roman
general, took Jerusalem by force, and defiled
the holy places by entering the very innermost
sanctuary of the temple." Aristobulus,^- who,
by the right of ancient succession, had been up
to that time both king and high priest, he sent
with his children in chains to Rome ; and gave
to Hyrcanus, brother of Aristobulus, the high
priesthood, while the whole nation of the Jews
was made tributary to the Romans from
7 that time.^'^ But Hyrcanus, who was the
last of the regular line of high priests, was
very soon afterward taken prisoner by the Parthi-
ans/' and Herod, the first foreigner, as I have
8
8 iepoSowAo?, " a tcmple-slave."
'•> Hyrcanus II., eldest son of the King Alexander Jannsus of
the Maccabiean family, became high priest upon the death of his
father, in 78 u.c. ; and upon the death of his mother, in 69 B.C., as-
cended the throne. He gave up his kingdom afterward (66 li.c.) to
his younger brother, Arisicbulus; but under the influence of Anti-
pater the Idumean endeavored to regain it, and after a long war wilh
his brother, was re-established in power by I'ompcy, in 63 B.C., but
merely as high priest and governor, not with the title of king. He
retained his position imtil 40 D.c, when he was driven out by liis
nephew Antigonus. He was murdered in 30 B.C., by command of
Herod the Great, who had married his grand-daughter Mariamne.
He was throughout a weak man, and while in power was completely
under the influence of his minister, Antipater.
1" Herod the Great.
" In 63 11. c, when Pompey's curiosity led him to penetrate into
the Holy of Holies. He was much impressed, however, by its sim-
plicity, and went away without disturbing its treasures, wondering at
a religion which had no visible God.
'- Aristobulus II., younger brother of Hyrcanus, a much abler
and more energetic man, assumed the kingdom by an arrangement
with his brother in 66 B.C. (.see note g, above). In 63 r..c. he was
deposed, and carried to Rome by I'ompey. He died about 48 n.c.
Eusebius is hardly correct in saying that Aristobulus was king and
high priest by regular succession, as his elder brother Hyrcanus was
the true heir, and he had assumed the power only because of his
superior ability-
'3 The real independence of the Jews practically ceased at this
time. For three years only, from 40 to 37 B.C., while Antigonus, son
of Aristobulus and nephew of Hyrcanus, was in power, Jerusalem
was indefjendcnt of Rome, but was soon retaken by Herod the Great,
and remained from that time on in more or less complete subjection,
either as a dependent kingdom or as a province.
'* 40 B.C., when Antigonus, by the aid of the Parthians took Jeru-
salem and established himself as king there, until couquercd by
already said, was made King of the Jewish
nation by the Roman senate and by Augus-
tus. Under him Christ appeared in bodily
shape, and the expected Salvation of the nations
and their calling followed in accordance with
prophecy. ^^ From this time the princes and
rulers of Judah, I mean of the Jewish nation,
came to an end, and as a natural consequence
the order of the high priesthood, which from
ancient times had proceeded regularly in closest
succession from generation to generation,
was immediately thrown into confusion.^*^ Of 9
these things Josephus is also a witness,'' who
shows that when Herod was made King by the
Romans he no longer appointed the high priests
from the ancient line, but gave the honor to
certain obscure persons. A course similar to
that of Herod in the appointment of the priests
was pursued by his son Archelaus,^^ and after
him by the Romans, who took the govern-
ment into their own hands.^'-* The same 10
writer shows ^° that Herod was the first that
locked up the sacred garment of the high priest
under his own seal and refused to permit the
high priests to keep it for themselves. The
same course was followed by Archelaus after
him, and after Archelaus by the Romans.
These things have been recorded by us 11
in order to show that another prophecy has
been fulfilled in the appearance of our Saviour
Jesus Christ. For the Scripture, in the book of
Daniel,-^ having expressly mentioned a certain
number of weeks until the coming of Christ, of
which we have treated in other books," most
clearly prophesies, that after the completion of
those weeks the unction among the Jews should
totally perish. And this, it has been clearly
shown, was fulfilled at the time of the birth of
our Saviour Jesus Christ. This has been neces-
Herod in 37 B.C. Hyrcanus returned to Jerusalem in 36 B.C., but
was no longer high priest.
1^ Compare Isa. i.\. 2; xlii. 6; xli.\. 6, etc.
'"' Eusebius' statement is jjcrfectly correct. The high priestly
lineage had been kept with great scrupulousness until Hyrcanus II.,
the last of the regular succession. (His grandson Aristobulus, how-
ever, was high priest for a year under Herod, but was then slain by
him.) Afterward the high priest was appointed and changed at
pleasure by the secular ruler.
Herod the Great first established the practice of removing a high
priest during his lifetime; and under him there were no less than six
different ones.
!■ Josephus, Ajii. XX. 8.
i» Archelaus, a son of Herod the Great by Malthace, a Samaritan
woman, and younger brother of Herod Antipas. Upon the death of
his father, B.C. 4, he succeeded to the government of Idumea, Sama-
ria, and Judea, with the title of Ethnarch.
'■' After the death of Archelaus (a.d. 7), Judea was made a
Roman province, and ruled by procurators until Herod Agripp.T I.
came into power in 37 A.D. (see below, Bk. II. chap. 4, note 3). The
changes in the high priesthood during the most of this time were
very rapid, one after another being appointed and removed .accord-
ing to tlic fancy of the procurator, or of the governor of Syria, who
held the iiower of appointment most of the time. There were no
fewer than nineteen high priests between the death of Archelaus and
the fall of Jerusalem.
=" Jo.-.ephus, .hi/. XV. 11. 4. -^ Dan. ix. 26.
-^ It is commonly assiuned that Eusebius refers here to the Dciii.
Evaiig.VWX. 2 sq., where the prophecies of Daniel are discussed at
length. Hut, as Lightfoot remarks, the reference is just as well sat-
isfied by the Eclogce Proph. HI. 45. We cannot, in fact, decide
which work is meant,
I. 7-]
AFRICANUS ON TIIIC GENEALOGY OF CHRIST.
91
sarily premised by us as a proof of the correct-
ness of the time.
CHAPTER VII.
The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard
to the Genealogy of Christ.
1 Mati'hew and Luke in their gospels have
given us the genealogy of Christ tlifferently,
and many suppose that they are at variance with
one another. Since as a consequence every be-
liever, in ignorance of the truth, has been zeal-
ous to invent some explanation which shall har-
monize the two passages, permit us to subjoin
the account of the matter which has come down
to us/ and which is given by Africanus, who
was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to
Aristides,- where he discusses the harmony of
the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opin-
ions of others as forced and deceptive, he gives
the account which he had received from tra-
2 dition" in these words : "For whereas the
names of the generations were reckoned in
Israel either according to nature or according to
law, — according to nature by the succession of
legitimate offspring, and according to law when-
ever another raised up a child to the name of a
brother dying childless ; ■* for because a clear
hope of resurrection was not yet given they had
1 " Over against the various opinions of uninstructed apologists
for the Gospel history, Eusebius introduces this account of Africanus
with the words, ^^r\v wepi tov-xtav KaT€\9ovcrav ei? ijn-ds laTopiav,"
(Spitta.)
- On Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31. Of this Aristides to whom
the epistle is addressed we know nothing. He must not be con-
founded with the apologist Aristides, who lived in the reign of Tra-
j.in (see below, Bk. IV. c. 3). Photius {Dibl. 34) mentions this epis-
tle, but tells us nothing about Aristides himself. The epistle exists
in numerous fragments, from which Spitta (^Der Brief dcs yulins
Africanus an Aristides kritisch nntcrsucht lend hergcstellt,
Halle, 1877) attempts to reconstruct the original epistle. His work
is the best and most complete upon the subject. Compare Routh,
Rel. Sacrie, II. pp. 228-237 and pp. 329-356, where two fragments
are given and discussed at length. The epistle (as given by Mai) is
translated in the Aiite-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VI. p. 125 ft".
The attempt of Africanus is, so far as we know, the first critical
attempt to harmonize the two genealogies of Christ. The question
had been the subject merely of guesses and suppositions until his
time. He approaches the matter in a free critical spirit (such as
seems always to have characterized him), and his investigations
therefore deserve attention. He holds that both genealogies are
those of Joseph, and this was the unanimous opinion of antiquity,
though, as he says, the discrepancies were reconciled in various
ways. Africanus himself, as will be seen, explains by the law of
Levitate marriages, and his view is advocated by Alill {On the
Mythical Interpretation of the Gospel, p. 201 sq.) ; but of this in-
terpretation Rev. John Lightfoot justly says, " There is neither
reason for it, nor, indeed, any foundation at all."
Upon the supposition that both genealogies relate to Joseph the
best explanation is that Matthew's table represents the royal line of
legal successors to the throne of David, while Luke's gives the line
of actual descent. This view is ably advocated by Hervey in Smith's
Bible Dictionary (article Genealogy of fcsns). Another opinion
which has prevailed widely since the Reformation is that Luke gives
the genealogy of Mary. The view is defended very ingeniously by
Weiss (Leben Jesu, I. 205, 2d edition). For further particulars
see, besides the works already mentioned, the various commentaries
upon Matthew and Luke and the various lives of Christ, especially
Andrews', p. 55 sq.
3 Eusebius makes a mistake in saying that Africanus had re-
ceived the explanation which follows from tradition. For Africanus
himself says expressly (§ 15, below) that his interpretation is not
supported by testimony. Eusebius' error has been repeated by most
writers upon the subject, but is exposed by Spitta, ibid. p. 63.
■* The law is stated in Deut. x.w. 5 sq.
a representation of the future promise by a kind
of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of
the one deceased might be perpetuated ; —
whereas then some of those who arc inserted 3
in this genealogical table succeeded by nat-
ural descent, the son to the father, while others,
though born of one father, were ascribed by
name to another, mention was made of both —
of those who were progenitors in fact and
of those who were so only in name. Thus 4
neither of the gospels is in error, for one
reckons by nature, the other by law. For the
line of descent from Solomon and that from
Nathan'^ were so involved, the one with the
other, by the raising up of children to the child-
less and by second marriages, that the same per-
sons are justly considered to belong at one time
to one, at another time to another \ that is, at
one time to the reputed fathers, at another to
the actual fathers. So that both these accounts
are, strictly true and come down to Joseph with
considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite ac-
curately. But in order that what I have 5
said may be made clear I shall explain the
interchange of the generations. If we reckon
the generations from David through Solomon,
the third from the end is found to be Matthan,
who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if,
with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the
son of David, in like manner the third from the
end is Melchi,^ whose son Eli was the father of
Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli,
the son of Melchi. Joseph therefore being 6
the object proposed to us, it must be shown
how it is that each is recorded to be his father,
both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solo-
mon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan ;
first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were
brothers, and then how it is that their fathers,
Matthan and Melchi, although of different fami-
lies, are declared to be grandfathers of Jo-
seph. Matthan and Melchi having married 7
in succession the same woman, begat chil-
dren who were uterine brothers, for the law did
not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or
by the death of her husband, from marrying
another. By Estha '' then (for this was the 8
woman's name according to tradition) Mat-
than, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob.
•' Nathan was a son of David and Bathsheba, and therefore own
brother of Solomon.
'' Melchi, who is here given as the third from the end, is in our
present texts of Luke the fifth (Luke iii. 24), Matthat and Levi
standing between Melchi and Eli. It is highly probable that the
text which Africanus followed omitted the two names Matthat and
Levi (see Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, Appendix, p. 57).
It is impossible to suppose that Africanus in such an investigation
as this could have overlooked two names by mistake if they had
stood in his text of the Gospels.
' We know nothing more of Estha. Africanus probably refers
to the tradition handed down by the relatives of Christ, who had, as
he says, preserved genealogies which agreed with those of the Gos-
pels. He distinguishes here what he gives on tradition from his
own interpretation of the Gospel discrepancy upon which he is
engaged.
92
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[1.7.
And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced
his descent back to Nathan, being of the same
tribe ^ but of another family,^ married her,
9 as before said, and begat a son EU. Thus
we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, al-
though belonging to different families, yet breth-
ren by the same mother. Of these the one,
Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless,
took the latter's wife and begat by her a son ^^
Joseph, his own son by nature" and in accord-
ance with reason. Wherefore also it is written :
' Jacob begat Joseph.' ^- But according to law ^"
lie was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the
brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
10 Hence the genealogy traced through him
will not be rendered void, which the evan-
gelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus :
' Jacob begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other
hand, says : ' Who was the son, as was supposed ' "
(for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of
Eli, the son of Melchi ' ; for he could not more
clearly express the generation according to law.
And the expression ' he begat ' he has omitted in
' yeVos. " In this place yeVo; is used to denote family. Mat-
than and Melchi were of different families, but both belonged to the
same Davidic race which was divided into two families, that of Solo-
mon and that of Nathan " (Valcsius).
'" All the MSS. and editions of Eusebius read TpiTov instead of
uioi" here. But it is very difficult to make any sense out of the word
TptVor in this connection. We therefore prefer to follow Spitta (see
/fiiW. pp. 87 sqq.) in reading viov instead of rpiroi', an emendation
which he has ventured to make upon the authority of Rufinus, who
translates " genuit Joseph filium suum," showing no trace of a xpe-
Toi'. The word rpirov is wanting also in three late Catenae which
contain the fragments of Africanus' Epistle (compare Spitta, ibid.
p. 117, note 12).
11 Kara. Aoyoi'. These words have caused translators and com-
mentators great difficulty, and most of them seem to have missed
their significance entirely. Spitta proposes to alter by readin'^ kito.-
Koyov, but the emendation is unnecessary. The remarks which he
makes (p. 8g sqq.) upon the relation between this sentence and the
ne.\t are, however, excellent. It was necessary to Africanus' theory
that Joseph should be allowed to trace his lineage through Jacob,
his f.ither " by nature," as well as through Eli, his father " by law,"
and hence the words Kara Aoyoi' are added and emphasized. He
was his son by nature and therefore " rightfully to be reckoned as
his son." This e.xplains the Biblical quotation which follows:
"Wherefore" — because he was Jacob's son by nature and could
rightfully be reckoned in his line, and not only in the line of Eli —
" it is written," &c.
12 Matt. i. 6.
" See Rev. John Lightfoot's remarks on Luke iii. 23, in his
Hebrew and Tahnitdical E.xcrcitations on St. Luke.
■* This passage has caused much trouble. Valesius remarks,
" Africanus wishes to refer the words ia% ei'o/u.i^iTo (' as was sup-
posed') not only to the words uio? 'Iiucrvj'/), but also to the words
Toi) 'lIAi, which follow, which although it is acute is nevertheless
improper and foolish; for if Luke indicates that legal generation or
adoption by the words (is ivo\j.i.C,i-ro, as Africanus claims, it would
follow that Christ was the son of Joseph by legal adoption in the
same way that Joseph was the son of Eli. And thus it would be
said that Mary, after the death of Joseph, married his brother, and
that Christ was begotten by him, which is impious and absurd. And
besides, if these words, ws ivofxi^no, are extended to the words toO
"HAi, in the same way they can be extended to all which follow. For
there is no reason why they should be supplied in the second grade
and not in the others.
But against Valesius, Stroth says that Africanus seeks nothing in
the words ws ejoni^ero, but in the fact that Luke says " he was the
son of," while Matthew says " he begat." Stroth's interpretation is
followed by Closs, Heinicncn, and others, but Routh follows Valc-
sius. Spitta discusses the matter carefully (p. 91 sq.), agreeing with
Valesius that Africanus lays the emphasis upon the words ws tvoiJ.i-
Cfito, but by an emendation (introducing a second los t'ro,aic,"cTo, and
reading " who was the son, as was supposed, of Jo.seph, the son of
Jacob, who was himself also the son, as was supposed, — for this he
also adds, — of Eli, the son of Melchi") he applies the ujs t>o/onc,'«TO
only to the first and second members, and takes it in a more general
sense to cover both cases, thus escaping Valesius' conclusions ex-
pressed above. The conjecture is ingenious, but is unwarranted and
his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the
genealogy back to Adam the son of God.
This interpretation is neither incapable of 11
proof nor is it an idle conjecture.^^ For
the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh,
whether with the desire of boasting or simply
wishing to state the fact, in either case truly,
have handed down the following account : "
Some Idumean robbers," having attacked Asca-
lon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a
temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in
addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a cer-
tain temple slave named Herod. And since the
priest ^* was not able to pay the ransom for his
son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of
the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended
by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an 12
embassy to Pompey, and having restored to
imnecessary. The words which occur in the next sentence, " and
the expression ' he begat ' he has omitted," show that Africanus, as
Stroth contends, lays the emphasis upon the difference of form in the
two genealogies, " Son of" and " he begat." The best explanation
seems to me to be that Africanus supposes Luke to have implied the
legal generation in the words " the Son of," used in distinction from
the definite expression " he begat," and that the words ws kvo^i-
iero, which " he also adds," simply emphasize this difference of ex-
pression by introducing a still greater ambiguity into Luke's mode
of statement. He not only uses the words, the ' ' Son of," which have
a wide latitude, admitting any kind of sonship, but " he also adds,"
" as was supposed," showing, in Africanus' opinion, still more
clearly that the list which follows is far from being a closely defined
table of descent by " natural generation."
t" This seems the best possible rendering of the Greek, which
reads tt/i' ai'a(}iopav TTOLriadixei'o<; euJs toO '.V^aft, tov deov Kar' ai'd-
Aucru'. ovSi /i>)i' avaTrd&iiKTov k.t.\., which is very dark, punctu-
ated thus, and it is difficult to understand what is meant by Kar'
d.fd\va-i.i> in connection with the preceding words. (Cruse translates,
"having traced it back as far as Adam, 'who was the son of God,'
he resolves the whole series by referring b.ick to God. Neither is
this incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture.") The objec-
tions which Spitta brings against the sentence in this form are well
founded. He contends (p. 63 sqq.), and that rightly, that Africanus
could not have written the sentence thus. In restoring the original
epistle of Africanus, therefore, he throws the words kit' did^vtriv
into the next sentence, which disposes of the difficulty, and makes
good sense. We should then read, " having traced it back as far as
Adam, the Son of God. This interpretation (more literally, ' as an
interpretation,' or ' by way of interpretation') is neither incapable
of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture." That Africanus wrote thus I
am convinced. But as Spitta shows, Eusebius must have divided
the sentences as they now stand, for, according to his idea, that
Africanus' account was one which he had received by tradition, the
other mode of reading would be incomprehensible, though he proba-
bly did not understand much 'oetter the meaning of kot' di'd^vaiv
as he placed it. In translating Africanus' epistle here, I have felt
justified in rendering it as Africanus probably wrote it, instead of
following Eusebius' incorrect reproduction of it.
1" The Greek reads: 7rape5ocrai' koI tovto, "have handed down
also." The /cal occurs in all the MSS. and versions of Eusebius,
and was undoubtedly written by him, but Spitta supposes it an addi-
tion of Eusebius, caused, like the change in the previous sentence,
by his erroneous conception of the nature of .africanus' interpreta-
tion. The Ka'i is certainly troublesome if we suppose that all that pre-
cedes is Africanus' own interpretation of the Biblical lists, and not a
traditional account handed down by the " relatives of our Lord " ; and
this, in spite of Eusebius' belief, we must certainly insist upon. We
m.ay therefore assume with Spitta that the koI did not stand in the
original epistle as Africanus wrote it. The question arises, if what
precedes is not given upon the authority of the " relatives of our
Lord," why then is this account introduced upon their testimony, as
if confirming the preceding? We may simply refer again to Africa-
nus' words at the end of the extract (§ 15 below) to prove that his
interpretation did not rest upon testimony, and then we may answer
with Spitta that their testimony, which is appealed to in § 14 below,
was to the genealogies themselves, and in this Africanus wishes it to
be known that they confirmed the Gospel lists.
^' See .above, chap. VI. notes 5 and 6.
'* We should expect the word " temple-servant" again instead of
" priest " ; but, as Valesius remarks, " It was possible for the same
person to be both priest and servant, if for instance it was a condi-
tion of priesthood that only captives should be made priests." And
this was really the case in many places.
I. 7.]
AFRICANUS ON THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST.
93
him the kingdom which hail been invaded by
his brotlier Aristobuliis, he had the good fortune
.to be named procurator of ralestine.'^ But
Antipatcr having been slain by those who were
envious of his great good fortune,-'' was succeeded
by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree
of the senate, made King of the Jews-' under An-
tony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and
the other tetrarchs." These accounts agree
13 also with those of the Greeks."' But as there
had been kept in the archives-^ up to that
time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as
of those who traced their lineage back to prose-
lytes,-^ such as Achior -'"' the Ammonite and Ruth
the ^loabitess, and to those who were mingled
with the Israelites and came out of Egj'pt with
them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Is-
raelites contributed nothing to his advantage,
and since he was goaded with the consciousness
of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the
genealogical records,"' thinking that he might
appear of noble origin if no one else were able,
from the public registers, to trace back his line-
age to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those
mingled with them, who were called Geo-
14 rae.-** A few of the careful, however, having
obtained private records of their own, either
^^ Appointed by Julius Caesar in 47 B.C. (see chap. VI. note i,
above).
-" He was poisoned by Malichus in 42 B.C. (see Josephus, Aui.
XIV. II. 4).
-1 Appointed king in 40 B.C. (see chap. VI. note i, above).
^- The ethnarch Archelaus (see chap. VI. note 18) and the te-
trarchs Herod Antipas and Herod Phiiip II.
2^ Cf. Dion Cassiiis, XXXVII. 15 sqq. and Strabo, XVI. 2. 46.
^* It was the custom of the Jews, to whom tribal and family
descent meant so much, to keep copies of the genealogical records
of the people in the public archives. Cf. e.g. Josephus, De J'iia,
§ I, where he draws his own lineage from the public archives; and
cf. Contra Apion. I. 7.
25 dypi irpocTJjAvrojj'. Heinichen and Burton read i.p\i.T! poa-qXv-
Tio;', " ancient proselytes." The two readings are about equally
supported by MS. authority, but the same persons are meant here
as at the end of the paragraph, where 7r,jocr7)Aj-ou5, not ap;(in-po3-i)-
AtTou5, occurs (cf. Spitta, pp. 97 sq., and Routh's Reliqjtite Sacm
II. p. 347 sq., 2d ed.).
-•> Achior was a general of the Ammonites in the army of Holo-
fernes, who, according to the Book of Judith, was a general of
Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians, and was slain by the Jewish
heroine, Judith. Achior is reported to have become afterward a
Jewish proselyte.
2' The Greek reads iviirpTqaev avrCiv ra? a.vaypa<t>a.^ tCju yevuiv,
but, with Spitta, I venture, against all the Greek MSS., to insert
TTcicra? before rd? a.vaypa(f>a'; upon the authority of Rufinus and the
author of the Syriac version, both of whom reproduce the wo;d
(cf. Spitta, p. 99 sq.). Africanus certainly supposed that Herod
destroyed «// the genealogical records, and not simply those of the
true Jews.
This account of the burning of the records given by Africanus is
contradicted by history, for we learn from Josephus,/?? I'l'ia, § i,
that he drew his own lineage from the public records, which were
therefore still in existence more than half a century after the time
at which Herod is said to have utterly destroyed them. It is signifi-
cant that Rufinus translates otniies Hchrctoruin gcnerationes de-
scriptce in Archivis tettipli sccrctiorilnis liabeba7iiur.
How old this tradition was we do not know ; Africanus is the sole
extant witness of it.
-* Toiis re (caAov/ueVovf "yeiuipa?. The word yciuipa^ occurs in
the LXX. of Ex. xii. 19, where it translates the Hebrew "^J. The
\. V. reads siraiiger., the R. V., sojourner, and Liddell and Scott
give the latter meaning for the Greek word. See Valesius' note
l'« loco, and Routh (II. p. 349 sq.), who makes some strictures upon
Valesius' note. Africanus refers here to all those that came out
from Egypt with the Israelites, whether native Egyptians, or for-
eigners resident in Egypt. Ex. xii. 38 tells us that a " mixed mul-
titude " went out with the children of Israel (eVi/iiKro'; ttoKv^), and
.Africanus jast above speaks of them in the same way ('Tri/ui'/cTui').
by remembering the names or by getting them in
some other way from the registers, pride them-
selves on preserving the memory of their noble
extraction. Among these are those already
mentioned, called Desposyni,-"-' on account of
their connection with the family of the Saviour.
Coming from Nazara and Cochaba,*' villages of
Judea,^' into other parts of the world, they drew
the aforesaid genealogy from memory "- and from
the book of daily records ^^ as faithfully as
possible. Whether then the case stand thus 15
or not no one could find a clearer explana-
tion, according to my own opinion and that of
every candid person. And let this suffice us,
23 SeaTTvavvoi: the persons called above (§ ii) the relatives of
the Saviour according to the flesh (oi Kara erdp/ca o-v-yycveis). The
Greek word signifies " belonging to a master."
3f Cochaba, according to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 2 and i5),
was a village in Basanitide near Decapolis. It is noticeable that
this region was the seat of Ebionism. There may therefore be sig-
nificance in the care with which these Vosposyni preserved the
genealogy of Joseph, for the Ebionites believed that Christ was the
real son of Joseph, and therefore Josepli's lineage was his.
'■^^ "Judca" is here used in the T.'ider sense of Palestine as a
whole, including the country both east and west of the Jordan.
The word is occasionally used in this sense in Josephus; and so
in Matt. xix. i, and Mark x. i, we read of" the coasts of Judea be-
yond Jordan." Ptolemy, Dion Cassius, and Strabo habitually em-
ploy the word in the wide sense.
"- €K fii'ijfxTji. These words are not found in any extant MSS.,
but I have followed Stroth and others in supplying them for the
following reasons. The Greek, as we have it, runs: Kal riji' Trpo-
Ket/LX€i'7jl' yei'^aXoytau eK T6 Tv}? ^ifiXov tmu rnxepuii' k.t.A. The
particle re indicates plainly that some phrase has fallen out. Ru-
finus translates oniiiiein supra dictce getierationis partz'in
metnoriter parthn etiain ex dieriiin lihris in quant mn
erat pcrdocebant. The words partim memoriter find no equiva-
lent in the Greek as we have it, but the particle tc, which still
remains, shows that words which Rufinus translated thus must
have stood originally in the Greek. The Syriac version also con-
firms the conclusion that something stood in the original which
has since disappeared, though the rendering which it gives rests
evidently upon a corrupt text (cf. Spitta, p. loi). Valesius sug-
gests the insertion of d^o /xi>j/ur;5, though he does not place the
phrase in his te.xt. Heinichen supplies p.vnp.oviv(ja.i'Tt<;, and is
followed by Closs in his translation. Stroth, Migne, Routh, and
Spitta read ix. y.vi\p.Tn<i, The sense is essentially the same in eacli
case.
33 It has been the custom since Valesius, to consider this " Book
of daily records" (|8l'^Aos r^v ^/iepwr) the same as the "private
records" (iSitoTticds d7roypa(^d?) mentioned just above. But this
opinion has been combated by Spitta, and that with perfect right.
The sentence is, in fact, an exact parallel to the sentence just
above, where it is said that a few of the careful, either by means of
their memory or by means of copies, were able to have " private
records of their own." In the present sentence it is said that " they
drew the aforesaid geiiealogy (viz., ' the private records of their
own') from memory, or from the Book 0/ daily records'' (which
corresponds to the copies referred to above). This book of daily
records is clearly, therefore, something other than the i6icuTiKd9
dn-oypa(^d?, but exactly what we are to understand by it is not so
easy to say. It cannot denote the regidar public records (called the
archives above) , for these were completed, and would not need to
be supplemented by memory; and apparently, according to Afri-
canus' opinion, these private records were made after the destruction
of the regular public ones. The " Book of daily records" referred
to must have been at any rate an incomplete genealogical source
needing to be supplemented by the memory. Private family record
books, if such existed previous to the supposed destruction of the
public records, of which we have no evidence, would in all prob-
ability have been complete for each family. Spitta maintains
(p. loi sq.) that the Book of Chronicles is meant: the Hebrew
G"X2'n ■'"1^"!, words or records of the days. This is a very at-
tractive suggestion, as the book exactly corresponds to the book
described: the genealogies which it gives are incomplete and re-
quire supplementing, and it is a book which was accessible to all;
public, therefore, and yet not involved in the supposed destruc-
tion. The diflSculty lies in the name given. It is true that Jerome
calls the Books of Chronicles Verba Dierutn and Hilary Ser-
tnones Dieru/n, &c.; but we should expect Africanus to use here
the technical LXX. designation, llapaKeinoixivuii'. But whatever
this " Book of daily records" was, it cannot have been the " pri-
vate records" which were firmed "from memory and from copies,"
but was one of the sources from which those " private records"
were drawn.
94
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[1.7.
for, although we can urge no testimony in its sup-
port,''^ we have nothing better or truer to offer.
In any case the Gospel states the truth." And
at the end of the same epistle he adds these
words : " Matthan, who was descended from
Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was
dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan,
begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob
were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died
childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting
Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the
son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of
17 both." Thus far Africanus. And the line-
age of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also
is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with
him, since, according to the law of Moses, inter-
marriages between different tribes were not per-
mitted.''^ For the command is to marry one of
the same family ^° and lineage,^^ so that the in-
heritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This
may suffice here.
CHAPTER VIII.
T/ie Cmeliy of Herod toivard the Infants, and
the Maimer of his Death.
1 When Christ was born, according to the
prophecies, in Bethlehem of Judea, at the
time indicated, Herod was not a little disturbed
by the enquiry of the magi who came from the
east, asking where he who was born King of the
Jews was to be found, — for they had seen his
star, and this was their reason for taking so long
a journey ; for they earnestly desired to wor-
ship the infant as God,^ — for he imagined that
Ills kingdom might be endangered ; and he en-
(piired therefore of the doctors of the law, who
belonged to the Jewish nation, where they ex-
pected Christ to be born. When he learned
•'* Compare note 3, above. Africanus" direct statement shows
clearly enough that he does not rest his interpretation of the geneal-
ogies (an interpretation which is purely a result of Biblical study)
upon the testimony of the relatives of the Saviour. Their testimony
is invoked with quite a different purpose, namely, in confirmation of
the genealogies themselves, and the long story (upon the supposition
th.1t their testimony is invoked in support of Africanus' interpreta-
tion, introduced absolutely without sense and reason) thus has its
proper place, in showing how the " relatives of the Saviour " were
III a position to be competent witnesses upon this question oi fact
(n )t interpretation), in spite of the burning of the public records
by Herod.
"I' The law to which Eusebius refers is recorded in Num.
xxxvi. 6, 7. But the prohibition given there was not an absolute
:i:id universal one, but a prohibition which concerned only heiresses,
who were not to marry out of their own tribe upon penalty of for-
feiting their inheritance (cf. Josephus, Ant. IV. 7. 5). It is an
instance of the limited nature of the law that Rlary and Eliza-
lieth were relatives, although Joseph and Mary belonged to the
tribe of Judah, and Zacharias, at least, was a Levite. This exam)>le
1 ly so near at hand that Eusebius should not have overlooked it
in making his assertion. His argument, therefore, in proof of the
fict that Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah has no force, but the
fact itself is abundantly established both by the unanimous tradition
of antiquity (independent of Luke's genealogy, which was universally
supposed to be that of Joseph), and by such passages as Ps. cxxxii.
II, Acts ii. 30, xiii. 23, Rom. i. 3.
^ &r}fJiOV,
Trarpta?.
* oca 0(iZ npo<TKVvriiTai. Kusebiiis adds the words o'n 6eu>, which
are not found in Matt. ii. 2 and 11, where TTpo<jKvvr)<Tai is used.
that the prophecy of Micah^ announced that
Bethlehem was to be his birthplace he com-
manded, in a single edict, all the male inflmts in
Bethlehem, and all its borders, that were two
years of age or less, according to the time
which he had accurately ascertained from the
magi, to be slain, supposing that Jesus, as was
indeed likely, would share the same fate as
the others of his own age. But the child 2
anticipated the snare, being carried into
Egypt by his parents, vv^ho had learned from an
angel that appeared unto them what was about
to happen. These things are recorded by
the Holy Scriptures in the Gospel.^ It is 3
worth while, in addition to this, to observ'e
the reward which Herod received for his daring
crime against Christ and those of the same age.
For immediately, without the least delay, the
divine vengeance overtook him while he was
still alive, and gave him a foretaste of what
he was to receive after death. It is not 4
possible to relate here how he tarnished
the supposed felicity of his reign by successive
calamities in his family, by the murder of wife
and children, and others of his nearest relatives
and dearest friends.* The accoimt, which casts
every other tragic drama into the shade, is de-
tailed at length in the histories of Josephus.^
How, immediately after his crime against 5
our Saviour and the other infants, the pun-
ishment sent by God drove him on to his death,
we can best learn from the words of that historian
who, in the seventeenth book of his Antiquities
of the Jews, writes as follows concerning
his end : ^ " But the disease of Herod grew 6
more severe, God inflicting punishment for
his crimes. For a slow fire burned in him which
was not so apparent to those who touched him,
but augmented his internal distress ; for he had
a terrible desire for food which it was not pos-
sible to resist. He was affected also with ulcera-
tion of the intestines, and with especially severe
pains in the colon, while a watery and trans-
parent humor settled about his feet. He 7
suffered also from a similar trouble in his
abdomen. Nay more, his privy member was
putrefied and produced worms. He fomid also
excessive difficulty in breathing, and it was par-
ticularly disagreeable because of the offensive-
- Mic. V. 2. ^ Matt. ii.
* Herod's reign was very successful and prosperous, and for
most of the time entirely undisturbed by external troubles; but his
domestic life was embittered by a constant succession o( tragedies
resulting from the mutual jealousies of his wives (of whom he had
ten) .Tud of their children. Early in his reign he slew Hyrcanus,
the grandfather of his best-loved wife Mariamne, upon suspicion of
treason; a little later, Mariamne herself was put to death; in 6 n r.
her sons, Alexander and Aristobidus, were condemned and execuit-d;
and in 4 n.c, but a few days before his death, Antipater, his eldest
son, who had been instrumental in the condemnation of Alexander
and Aristobulus, was also slain by his orders. These murders weie
accoTupaiiiicl by many others of friends and kindred, who were con-
sl;uuly falling under suspicion of treason.
■"■ In the later books of the Antiquities and in the first bnnk of
the Jewish war. " Josephus, Ant. XN'll. (-. j.
I. 8.]
THE END OF HEROD.
95
ncss of the odor and the rapidity of respiration.
He had convulsions also in every limb,
8 which gave him uncontrollable strength. It
was said, indeed, by those who possessed the
power of divination and wisdom to explain such
events, that Clod had inllicted this ])unishmcnt
upon the King on account of his great imi)icty."
The writer mentioned above recounts these
9 tilings in tiie work referred to. And in
the second book of his History he gives
a similar account of the same Herod, which runs
as follows : '^ " The disease then seized upon his
whole body and distracted it by various tor-
ments. For he had a slow fever, and the itch-
ing of the skin of his whole body was insupporta-
ble. He suffered also from continuous pains in
his colon, and there were swellings on his feet
like those of a person suffering from dropsy,
while his abdomen was inflamed and his privy
member so putrefied as to produce worms. Be-
sides this he could breathe only in an upright
posture, and then only with difficulty, and he had
convulsions in all his limbs, so that the diviners
said that his diseases were a punishment.'^
10 But he, although wrestling with such suffer-
ings, nevertheless clung to life and hoped
fjr safety, and devised methods of cure. For
instance, crossing over Jordan he used the warm
baths at Callirhoe," which flow into the Lake As-
phaltites,^" but are themselves sweet enough
11 to drink. His physicians here thought that
they could warm his whole body again Ijy
means of heated oil. But when they had let
him down into a tub filled with oil, his eyes be-
came weak and turned up like the eyes of a dead
person. But when his attendants raised an out-
cry, he recovered at the noise ; but finally, de-
spairing of a cure, he commanded about fifty
drachms to be distributed among the soldiers,
and great sums to be given to his generals
12 and friends. Then returning he came to
Jericho, where, being seized with melan-
7 B. y. I. 33- 5 and 6.
8 iroiv^v iiva.1. ra voa-rnLti-ra. Ae'yeti'. Josephus, according to the
text of Hudson, reads ttoii'tj^ eu'at tZiv (TOtjucrThiv ra vocrrifxaTa \e-
yeiv, which is translated by Traill, " pronounced his maladies a
judgment for his treatment of the Sophists." Nicephorus (//. £. I.
15) agrees with Eusebius in omitting the words Tajy ctoi/jicttcoi', but
he is not an independent witness. Whether Hudson's text is sup-
ported at this point bjr strong MS. authority I do not know. If the
words stood in the original of Josephus, we may suppose that they
were accidentally omitted by Eusebius himself or by one of his copy-
ists, or that they were thrown out in order to make Josephus' state-
ment better correspond with his own words in Ani. XVII. 6, quoted
just above, where his disease is said to have been a result of his im-
piety in general, not of any particular exhibition of it.
On the other hand, the omission of the words in Aiii. XVII. 6
casts at least a suspicion on their genuineness, and if we were to
assume that the words did not occur in the original text of Josephus,
It would be very easy to luiderstand their insertion by some copyist,
for in the previous paragraph the historian has been speaking of the
Sophists, and of Herod's cruel treatment of them.
" Callirhoe was a town just east of the De.ad Sea.
1" T/)>' 'AcriftaXriTLv kiixi'riv. This is the name by which Josephus
commonly designates the Dead Sea. The same name occurs also in
Diodorus Siculus (II. 48, XIX. 98).
choly, he planned to commit an impious deed,
as if challenging death itself. P'or, collecting
from every town the most illustrious men of all
Judea, he commanded that they be shut up
in the so-called hijjiiodrome. And having 13
summoned Salome," his sister, and her hus-
band, Alexander,'- he said : ' I know that the Jews
will rejoice at my death. But I may be lamented
by others and have a splendid funeral if you arc
willing to perform my commands. When I shall
expire surround these men, who are now under
guard, as quickly as possible with soldiers, and
slay them, in order that all Judea and every house
may weep fjr me even against their will.' '"^
And after a little Josephus says, " And again 14
he was so tortured by want of food and by
a convulsive cough that, overcome by his pains,
he planned to anticipate his fate. Taking an
apple he asked also for a knife, for he was accus-
tomed to cut apples and eat them. Then look-
ing round to see that there was no one to hinder,
he raised his right hand as if to stab him-
self." " In addition to these things the 15
same writer records that he slew another of
his own sons^^ before his death, the third one
slain by his command, and that immediately
afterward he breathed his last, not without ex-
cessive pain.
Such was the end of Herod, who suffered 16
a just punishment for his slaughter of the
children of Bethlehem,^" which was the result
of his plots against our Saviour. After this 17
an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph in
Egypt and commanded him to go to Judea with
the child and its mother, revealing to him that
those who had sought the life of the child were
dead.^'^ To this the evangelist adds, " But when
he heard that Archelaus did reign in the room
of his father Herod he was afraid to go thither ;
notwithstanding being warned of God in a dream
he turned aside into the parts of Galilee." ^^
^1 Salome was own sister of Herod the Great, and wife in succes-
sion of Joseph, Costabarus, and Alexas. She possessed all the cru-
elty of Herod himself and was the cause, through her jealousy and
envy, of most of the terrible tragedies in his family.
1- Alexander, the third husband of Salome, is always called
Alexas by Josephus.
13 B. J. I. 13. 6 (cf. Ani. XVII. 6. 5). "This terrible story rests
upon the authority of Josephus alone, but is so in keeping with
Herod's character that we have no reason to doubt its truth. The
commands of Herod, however, were not carried out, the condemned
men being released after his death by Salome (see ibid. § 8).
" B. J. I. 33. 7 (cf. Aiit. XVII. 7). Herod's suicide was pre-
vented by his cousin Achiabus, as Josephus informs us in the same
connection.
1= B. J. I. 33. 7 and 8 (cf. Ajit. XVII. 7). Antipater, son of
Herod and hisfirst wife Doris, was intended by his fatfier to be his
successor in the kingdom. He was beheaded five days before the
death of Herod, for plotting against his father. He richly deserved
his fate.
1'' Eusebius gives here the traditional Christian interpretation of
the cause of Herod's sufferings. Josephus nowhere mentions the
slaughter of the innocents; whether through ignorance, or because
of the insignificance of the tragedy when compared with the other
bloody acts of Herod's reign, we do not know.
" See Matt. ii. 19, 20.
"^ Matt, ii, ??.
96
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[1.9.
CHAPTER IX.
The Times of Pilate.
1 The historian already mentioned agrees
witli the evangehst in regard to the fact
that Archelaus^ succeeded to the government
after Herod. He records the manner in which
he received the kingdom of the Jews by the
will of his father Herod and by the decree of
Csesar Augustus, and how, after he had reigned
ten years, he lost his kingdom, and his brothers
Philip - and Herod the younger,^ with Lysanias,'*
still ruled their own tetrarchies. The same
writer, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities;'
says that about the twelfth year of the reign of
Tiberius,'' who had succeeded to the empire
after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years,^ Pon-
1 Archelaus was a son of Herod the Great, and own brother of
the Tetrarch Herod Antipas, with whom he was educated at Rome.
Immediately after the death of Antipater he was designated by his
father as his successor in the kingdom, and Augustus ratified the
will, but gave him only the title of ethnarch. The title of King he
never really received, although he is spoken of as king in Matt. ii.
22, tlie word being used in a loose sense. His dominion consisted
of Idumea, Judea, Samaria, and the cities on the coast, comprising
a half of his father's kingdom. The other half was divided between
Herod Antipas and Philip. He was very cruel, and was warmly
hated by most of his subjects. In the tenth year of his reign (ac-
cording to Joseph IS, Ant. XVII. 13. 2), or in the ninth (according
to B. y, II. 7. 3), he was complained against by his brothers and
subjects on the ground of cruelty, and was banished to Vienne in
Gaul, where he probably died, although Jerome says that he was
shown his tomb near Bethlehem. Jerome's report, however, is too
late to be of any value. The exact length of his reign it is impos-
sible to say, as Josephus is not consistent in his reports. The
difference may be due to the fact that Josephus reckoned from
different starting-points in the two cases. He probably ruled a
little more than nine years. His condemnation took place in the
consulship of M. /Emilius Lepidus and L. Arruntius (i.e. in
6 A.D.) according to Dion Cassius, LV. 27. After the deposition
of Archelaus Judea was made a Roman province and attached
to Syria, and Coponius was sent as the first procurator. On Arche-
laus, see Josephus, Ant. XVII. 8, 9, 11 sq., and B. J. I. 33. 8 sq.;
II. 6 sq.
- Philip, a son of Herod the Great by his wife Cleopatra, was
Tetrarch of Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurinitis, &c., from B.C. 4 to
A.D. 34. He was distinguished for his justice and moderation. He is
mentioned only once in the New Testament, Luke iii. i. On Philip,
see Josephus, Ant. XVII. 8. i; ii. 4; XVIII. 4. 6.
•^ Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great by his wife Malthace,
was Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from B.C. 4 to ad. 39. In 39 a.d.
he went to Rome to sue for the title of King, which his nephew Herod
Agrippa had already secured. But accusations against him were
sent to the emperor by .'\grippa, and he thereby lost his tetrarchy
and was banished to Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul, and died (accord-
ing to Josephus, B. J. II. p. 6) in Spain. It was he who beheaded
John the Baptist, and to him Jesus was sent by Pilate. His char-
acter is plain enough from the New Testament account. For further
particulars of his life, see Josephus, Ant. XVII. 8. i; 11. 4;
XVIII. 2. i; 5 and 7; B. J. II. 9.
* The Lysanias referred to here is mentioned in Luke iii. i as
Tetrarch of Abilene. Eusebius, ir. speaking of Lysanias here,
follows the account of Luke, not that of Josephus, for the latter
nowhere says that Lysanias continued to rule his tetrarchy after the
exile of Archelaus. Indeed he nowhere states that Lysanias ruled a
tetrarchy .at this period. He only refers {Ant. XVIII. 6. 10; XIX.
5. i; XX. 7. i; and B. J. II. 12. 8) to "the tetrarchy of Lysa-
nias," which he says was given to Agrippa I. and II. by Caligula
and Claudius. EuseWus thus reads more into Josephus than he hns
any right to do, and yet we cannot assume that he is guilty of willful
deception, for he may quite innocently have interpreted Josephus in
the light of Luke's account, without realizing that Josephus' state-
ment is of itself entirely indefinite. That there is no real contra-
diction between the statements of Josephus and Luke has been
abundantly demonstrated by Davidson, Introduction to the New
Testament, I. p. 215 sq.
'• Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 2. 2 and 4. 2.
" Josephus reckons here from the death of Augustus (14 A.D.),
when Tiberius became sole emperor. Pilate was appointed pro-
curator in 26 A.D. and was recalled in 36.
' Josephus dates the beginning of Augustus' reign at the time of
the death of Julius Caesar (as Eusebius also does in chap. S, § 2),
and calls him the second emperor. But Augustus did not actually
become emperor until 31 n.c, after the battle of Actium.
tius Pilate was entrusted with the government
of Judea, and that he remained there ten full
years, almost until the death of Tiberius.
Accordingly the forgery of those who have 2
recently given currency to acts against our
Saviour* is clearly proved. For the very date
given in them '■' shows the falsehood of their
fabricators. For the things which they have 3
dared to say concerning the passion of the
Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of
Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of
his reign ; at which time it is plain that Pilate
was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of
Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows
in the above-mentioned work '" that Pilate was
made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the
twelfth year of his reign.
CHAPTER X.
The High Priests of the Jetus under whom Christ
taught.
It was in the fifteenth year of the reign 1
of Tiberius,^ according to the evangelist,
and in the fourth year of the governorship of
Pontius Pilate," while Herod and Lysanias and
Philip were ruHng the rest of Judea,^ that our
Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, being
about thirty years of age,* came to John for bap-
tism and began the promulgation of the
Gospel. The Divine Scripture says, more- 2
over, that he passed the entire time of his
ministry under the high priests Annas and
Caiaphas,® showing that in the time which be-
* Eusebius refers here, not to the acts of Pilate written by
Christians, of which so many are still extant (cf. Bk. II. chap. 2, note
i), but to those forged by their enemies with the approval of the
emperor Maximinus (see below, Bk. IX. chap. 5).
'■> 6 T^? Trapao-r/neiajaeui? XP°''°''- " ^^ '^'^ place napacr. is the
superscription or the designation of the time which was customarily
prefixed to acts. For judicial acts were thus drawn up: Consnlatii
I'il'crii Augusti Septiino, inducto injndicimn Jesu, &c." (Val.)
1" Ant. XVIII. 2. 2. Compare § i, above.
1 Luke iii. i. Eusebius reckons the fifteenth year of Tiberius
from 14 A.D., that is, from the time when he became sole emperor.
There is a difference of opinion among commentators as to whether
Luke began to reckon from the coUeagueship of Tiberius (ii or
12 A.D.), or from the beginning of his reign as sole emperor. Either
mode of reckoning is allowable, but as Luke says that Christ " be-
gan to be about thirty years of age " at this time, and as he was born
probably about 4 B.C., the former seems to have been Luke's mode.
Compare Andrew's Life cf our Lord, p. 28.
- Luke says simply, " while Pontius Pilate was governor of
Judea," and does not mention the year, as Eusebius does.
^ See the previous chapter.
■• Eusebius' reckoning would make Christ's birthday synchron-
ize with the beginning of our Christian era, which is at least three
years out of the way.
" Luke iii. 2 compared with John xi. 49 and 51, and xviii. 13.
Stroth remarks: " Had I not feared acting contr.ary to the duty
of a translator, I should gladly, for the sake of Eusebius' honor, have
left out this entire chapter, which is full of historical inaccuracies and
contr.adictions. Eusebius deduces from Josephus him.self that the
Procurator Gratus, whom Pilate succeeded, appointed Caiaphas high
priest. Therefore Caiaphas became high priest before the twelfth
year of Tiberius, for in that year Pilate became procurator. In the
fifteenth year of Tiberius, Christ began his work when Caiaphas
had already been hiijh vriest three years, and according to the false
account of our authir lie became high priest for the first time in the
nineteenth year of Tiberius. The whole structure of this chapter,
therefore, falls to the ground. It is almost inconceivable how so
prudent a man could have committed so great a mistake of the same
I. II.] JOSEPHUS ON JOHN THE BAPTIST AND CHRIST.
97
longed to the priesthood of those two men the
whole period of his teaching was completed.
Since he began his work during the high ]:)riest-
hood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held
the office, the entire time does not com-
3 prise quite four years. For the rites of the
law having been already abolished since
that time, the customary usages in connection
with the worship of God, according to which
the high priest acquired his office by hereditary
descent and held it for life, were also annulled,
and there were appointed to the high priesthood
by the Roman governors now one and now an-
other person who continued in office not
4 more than one year.'' Josephus relates that
there w^ere four high priests in succession
from Annas to Caiaphas. Thus in the same
book of the Antiquities ^ he writes as follows :
" Valerius Gratus '^ having put an end to the
priesthood of Ananus^ appoints IshmaeV the
son of Fabi, high priest. And having removed
him after a little he appoints Eleazer,'^ the son
of Ananus the high priest, to the same office.
And having removed him also at the end of a
year he gives the high priesthood to Simon,^- the
son of Camithus. But he likewise held the
honor no more than a year, when Josephus,
called also Caiaphas,^^ succeeded him." Ac-
sort as that which he had denounced a little before in connection
with the Acts of Pilate.'"
The whole confusion is due to Eusebius' mistaken interpretation
of the Gospel account, which he gives in this sentence. It is now
universally assumed that Annas is named by the evangelists as ex-
high-priest, but Eusebius, not understanding this, supposed that a
part of Christ's ministry must have fallen during the active adminis-
tration of Annas, a part during that of Caiaphas, and therefore his
ministry must have run from the one to the other, embracing the
intermediate administrations of Ishmael, Eleazer, and Simon, and cov-
ering less than four years. In order to make this out he interprets
the " not long after" in connection with Ishmael as meaning " one
year," which is incorrect, as shown below in note g. How Euse-
bius could have overlooked the plain fact that all this occurred under
Valerius Gratus instead of Pilate, and therefore many years too
early (when he himself states the fact), is almost incomprehensible.
Absorbed in making out his interpretation, he must have thought-
lessly confounded the names of Gratus and Pilate while reading the
account. He cannot have acted knowingly, with the intention to
deceive, for he must have seen that anybody reading his account
would discover the glaring discrepancy at once.
•^ It is true that under the Roman governors the high priests
were frequently changed (cf. above, chap. 6, note ig), but there was
no regularly prescribed interval, and some continued in ofBce for
many years; for instance, Caiaphas was high priest for more than
ten years, during the whole of Pilate's administration, having been
appointed by Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor, and his succes-
sor being appointed by the Proconsul Vitellius in 37 a.d. {vid. Jo-
sephus, Ant. XVIII. 2. 2 and 4. 3). '' Josephus, ^«2f. XVIII. 2. 2.
'^ This Valerius Gratus was made procurator by Tiberius, sooti
after his accession, and ruled about eleven years, when he was suc-
ceeded by Pilate in 26 a.d.
9 Ananus (or Annas) was appointed high priest by Quirinius,
governor of Syria, in 6 or 7 a.d. (Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 2. i), and
remained in office until a.d. 14 or 15, when he was deposed by
Valerius Gratus {_ib. § 2). This forms another instance, therefore,
of a term of office more than one year in length. Annas is a famil-
iar personage from his connection with the Gospel history; but the
exact position which he occupied during Christ's ministry is difficult
to determine (cf. Wieseler's CJtrcoiology of the Life 0/ Christ).
'" Either this Ishmael must have held the office eight or ten
years, or else Caiaphas that long before Pilate's time, for otherwise
Gratus' period is not filled up. Josephus' statement is indefinite in
regard to Ishmael, and Eusebius is wrong in confining his term of
ofiice to one year.
'1 According to Josephus, Ant. XX. g. i, five of the sons of
Annas became high priests.
'- This Simon is an otherwise unknown personage.
'^ Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, is well known from his
connection with the Gospel history.
VOL. L 1
cordingly the whole time of our Saviour's min-
istry is shown to have been not quite four full
years, four high priests, from Annas to the acces-
sion of Caiaphas, having held office a year each.
The Gospel therefore has rightly indicated Caia-
phas as the high priest under whom the Saviour
suffered. From which also we can see that the
time of our Saviour's ministry does not disagree
with the foregoing investigation.
Our Saviour and Lord, not long after the 5
beginning of his ministry, called the twelve
apostles,^* and these alone of all his disciples
he named apostles, as an especial honor. And
again he appointed seventy others whom he sent
out two by two before his face into every place
and city whither he himself was about to come.'*
CHAPTER XI.
Testimonies in Regard to yohn the Baptist and
Christ.
Not long after this John the Baptist was 1
beheaded by the younger Herod,^ as is
stated in the Gospels.- Josephus also records
the same fact," making mention of Herodias'* by
name, and stating that, although she was the-
wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife
after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was
the daughter of Aretas,^ king of Petra, and sepa-
rating Herodias from her husband while he
was still alive. It was on her account also 2
that he slew John, and waged war with
Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the
daughter of the latter. Josephus relates that in
this war, when they came to battle, Herod's
entire army was destroyed,^ and that he suffered
this calamity on account of his crime against
John.
The same Josephus confesses in this ac- 3
count that John the Baptist was an exceed-
ingly righteous man,- and thus agrees with the
things written of him in the Gospels. He records
also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of
" See Matt. x. 1-4; Mark iii. 14-ig; Luke vi. 13-16.
"^^ See Luke ,x. i.
1 Herod Antipas. ^ Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 5. 2.
2 Matt. xiv. 1-12; Mark vi. 17 sq.
* Herodias, a daughter of Aristobulus and grand-daughter of
Herod the Great, first married Herod Philip (whom Josephus calls
Herod, and whom the Gospels call Philip), a son of Herod the
Great, and therefore her uncle, who seems to have occupied a
private station. Afterwards, leaving him during his lifetime, she
married another uncle, Herod Antipas the Tetrarch. When her
husband, Antipas, was banished to Gaul, she voluntarily shared his
banishment and died there. Her character is familiar from the
accounts of the New Testament.
^ Aretas /Eneas is identical with the Aretas mentioned in 2 Cor.
xi. 32, in connection with Paul's flight from Jerusalem (cf. Wieseler,
Chron. des ap. Zcitaiters, p. 142 and 167 sq.). He was king of
Arabia Nabatsa, whose capital was the famous rock city, Petra,
which gave its name to the whole country, which was in consequence
commonly called Arabia Petr,-Ea.
" In this emergency Herod appealed to Tiberius, with whom he
was a favorite, and the emperor commanded Vitellius, the governor
of Syria, to proceed against Aretas. The death of Tiberius inter-
rupted operations, and under Caligula friendship existed between
Aretas and the Romans.
98
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[I. IT.
the same Herodias, and that he was driven into
banishment with her, and condemned to
4 live at Vienne in GaulJ He relates these
things in the eighteenth book of the An-
tiquities, where he writes of John in the following
words : *• " It seemed to some of the Jews that
the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who
most justly avenged John called the Baptist.
5 For Herod slew him, a good man and one
who exhorted the Jews to come and receive
baptism, practicing virtue and exercising right-
eousness toward each other and toward God ; for
baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when
they employed it, not for the remission of certain
sins, but for the purification of the body, as the
soul had been already purified in righteous-
6 ness. And when others gathered about
him (for they found much pleasure in listen-
ing to his words), Herod feared that his great
influence might lead to some sedition, for they
appeared ready to do whatever he might advise.
He therefore considered it much better, before
any new thing should be done under John's in-
fluence, to anticipate it by slaying him, than to
repent after revolution had come, and when he
found himself in the midst of difficulties.^ On
account of Herod's suspicion John was sent in
bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of
7 Machsera,'^ and there slain." After relating
these things concerning John, he makes
mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the
following words : '^ " And there lived at that time
' Josephus gives the account of Herod's banishment in his y/«//-
quities XVIII. 7. 2, but names Lyons instead of Vienne as the place
of his exile. Eusebius here confounds the fate of Herod with that
of Archelaus, who was banished to Vienne (see above, chap. 9,
note i).
* Ant. XVIII. S- 2- This passage upon John the Baptist is
referred to by Origen in his Contra Crls. I. 47, and is found in all
our MSS. of Josephus. It is almost universally admitted to be
genuine, and there is no good reason to doubt that it is, for such a
dispassionate and strictly impartial account of John could hardly
have been written by a Christian interpolator.
" Josephus differs with the Evangelists as to the reason for John's
imprisonment, but the accounts of the latter bear throughout the
stamp of more direct and accurate knowledge than that of Josephus.
Ewald remarks with truth, " When Josephus, however, gives as the
cause of John's execution only the Tetrarch's general fear of popu-
lar outbreaks, one can see that he no longer had perfect recollec-
tion of the matter. The account of Mark is far more exact and
instructive."
'" Machsera was an important fortress lying east of the northern
end of the Dead Sea. It was the same fortress to which the daugh-
ter of Aretas had retired when Herod formed the design of marrying
Herodias; and the word " aforesaid" refers to Josephus' mention of
it in that connection in the previous paragraph.
" Ant. XVIII. 3. 3. This account occurs before that of John
the Baptist, not after it. It is found in all our MSS. of Josephus,
and was considered genuine until the sixteenth century, but since
then has been constantly disputed. Four opinions are held in re-
gard to it; (i) It is entirely genuine. This view has at present few
supporters, and is absolutely untenable. A Christian hand is un-
mistakably apparent, — if not throughout, certainly in many parts;
and the silence in regard to it of all Christian writers until the time
of Eusebius is fatal to its existence in the original text. Origen, for
instance, who mentions Josephus' testimony to John the Baptist in
Contra Cels. I. 47, betrays no knowledge of this passaee in regard
to Christ. (2) It is entirely spurious. Such writers as Hase, Keim,
and Schlirer adopt this view. (3) It is partly genuine and partly
interpolated. This opinion has, perhaps, the most defenders, among
them Gieseler, Weizsacker, Renan, Edersheim, and Schaff. (4) It
has been changed from a bitter Jewish calumny of Christ to a Chris-
tian eulogy of him. This is Ewald's view. The second opinion
seems to me the correct one. The third I regard as untenable, for
the reason that after the obviously Christian passages are omitted
Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call
him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful
works, and a teacher of such men as receive the
truth in gladness. And he attached to himself
many of the Jews, and many also of the
Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, 8
on the accusation of our principal men,
condemned him to the cross, those who had
loved him in the beginning did not cease loving
him. For he appeared unto them again alive on
the third day, the divine prophets having told these
and countless other wonderful things concerning
him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named
after him, continues down to the present
day." Since an historian, who is one of the 9
Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his
work these things concerning John the Baptist
and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for
not convicting them of being destitute of all
shame, who have forged the acts against them ? ^^
But let this suffice here.
CHAPTER XII.
The Disciples of our Saviour.
The names of the apostles of our Sa- 1
viour are known to every one from the
Gospels.^ But there exists no catalogue of the
seventy disciples.^ Barnabas, indeed, is said to
have been one of them, of whom the Acts of
the apostles makes mention in various places,^
there remains almost nothing; and it seems inconceivable that Jose-
phus should have given so colorless a report of one whom the Jews
regarded with such enmity, if he mentioned him at all. The fourth
view might be possible, and is more natural than the third; but it
seems as if some trace of the original calumny would have survived
somewhere, had it ever existed. To me, however, the decisive
argument is the decided break which the passage makes in the con-
text; § 2 gives the account of a sedition of the Jews, and § 4 opens
with the words, " About the same time also another sad calamity
put the Jews into disorder"; while § 3, containing the account of
Christ, gives no hint of sedition or disorder among the Jews.
It has been suggested that Eusebius himself, who is the first one
to quote this passage, introduced it into the text of Josephus. This
is possible, but there is no reason to suppose it true, for it is con-
trary to Eusebius' general reputation for honesty, and the manner
in which he introduces the quotation both here and in his Dem.
Kvang. III. 5 certainly bears every mark of innocence: and he
would scarcely have dared to insert so important an account in his
History had it not existed in at least some MSS. of Josephus. We
may be confident that the interpolation must have been made in the
MSS. of Josephus before it appeared in the History. For a brief
summary of the various views upon the subject, see SchafTs Church
History, Vol. I. p. 9 sq., and Edersheim's article on Josephus in Smith
and Wace's Diet. 0/ Christian Biography. Compare also Heini-
chen's E.vciirsits upon the passage in his edition of Eusebius, Vol.
III. p. 623-654.
'- See chap, g, note 8, above.
1 See Matt. x. 2-4; Luke vi. 13-16; Mark iii. 14-19.
- See Luke x. 1-20.
3 See Acts iv. 36, xiii. i et fassim. Clement of Alexandria
{Strom. II. 20) calls Barnabas one of the Seventy. This tradition
is not in itself improbable, but we can trace it back no further than
Clement. The Clementine Recognitions and Homilies frequently
mention Barn.abas as an apostle active in Alexandria and in Rome.
One tradition sends him to Milan and makes him the first bishop of
the church there, but the silence of Ambrose in regard to it is a
sufficient proof of its groundlessness. There is extant an npocryphal
work, probably of the fifth century, entitled Acta et I'assio Har-
nahis in Cyf>ro, which relates his death by martyrdom in Cyprus.
The tradition may be true, but its exi'itence has no weight. Bur-
nabas came from Cyprus and labored there for at least a time. It
would be natural, therefore, to assign his death (which was ne4 es-
sarily martyrdom, for no Christian writer of the early centuries could
have admitted that he died a natural death) to that place.
I. 12.]
THE DISCIPLES OF OUR SAVIOUR.
99
and especially Paul in his Epistle to the Gala-
tians.* They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to
the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them;^
2 This is the account of Clement'' in the fifth
book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also
says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples,"
a man who bore the same name as the apostle
Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says,
" When Cephas came to Antioch I with-
3 stood him to his face."** Matthias," also,
who was numbered with the apostles in the
place of Judas, and the one who was honored
by being made a candidate with him,'" are like-
wise said to have been deemed worthy of the same
calling with the seventy. They say that Thad-
deus ^^ also was one of them, concerning whom
I shall presently relate an account which has
come down to us.'- And upon examination
you will find that our Saviour had more than
seventy disciples, according to the testimony of
Paul, who says that after his resurrection from
the dead he appeared first to Cephas, then to the
twelve, and after them to above five hundred
brethren at once, of whom some had fallen
asleep ; ^'"^ but the majority were still living
4 at the time he wrote. Afterwards he says
he appeared unto James, who was one of
the so-called brethren of the Saviour." But,
* Gal. ii. I, 9, and 13.
^ Sosthenes is mentioned in i Cor. i. i. From what source Euse-
bius drew this report in regard to him I cannot tell. He is the first
to mention it, so far as I know. A later tradition reports that he
became Bishop of Colophon, a city in Ionia. A Sosthenes is men-
tioned also in Acts xviii. 17, as ruler of the Jewish synagogue in
Corinth. Some wish to identify the two, supposing the latter to
have been afterward converted, but in this case of course he cannot
have been one of the Seventy. Eusebius' tradition is one in regard
to whose value we can form no opinion.
'' On Clement and his works see Bk. V. chap. 11, note i, and
Bk. VI. chap. 13.
' Clement is, so far as I know, the first to make this distinction
between Peter the Apostle, and Cephas, one of the Seventy. The
reason for the invention of a second Peter in the post-apostolic age
is easy to understand as resulting from the desire to do away with
the conflict between two apostles. This Cephas appears frequently
in later traditions and is commemorated in the Menology of Basil
on December 9, and in the Armenian calendar on September 25. In
the Ecclesiastical Canons he is made one of the twelve apostles,
and distinguished from Peter. ^ Gal. ii. 11.
'•* We learn from Acts i. 21 sqq. that Matthias was a follower of
Christ throughout his ministry, and therefore the tradition, which
Eusebius is, so far as we know, the first to record, is not at all im-
probable. Epiphanius (at the close of the first book of his Har.,
Dindorf'sed. I. p. 337) a half-century later records the same tradition.
Nicephorus Callistus (II. 40) says that he labored and suffered mar-
tyrdom in Ethiopia (probably meaning Caucasian Ethiopia, east of the
Black Sea). Upon the Gospel of Matthias see below. III. 25, note 30.
'" Joseph Earsabas, surnamed Justus. He, too, had been with
Christ from the beginning, and therefore may well have been one of
the Seventy, as Eusebius reports. Papias (quoted by Eusebius,
III. 39, below) calls him Justus Barsabas, and relates that he drank
a deadly poison without experiencing any injury.
11 From a comparison of the different lists of apostles given by
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Thaddeus is seen to be one of the Twelve,
apparently identical with Jude and Lebbaeus (compare Jerome, In
Matt. X.). Eusebius here sunders him from the apostles and makes
him one of the Seventy, committing an error similar to that which
arose in the case of Peter and Cephas. He perhaps records only an
oral tradition, as he uses the word if>a<Ti. He is, so far as is known,
the first to mention the tradition.
12 See the next chapter. '' See i Cor. xv. 5-7.
1* The relationship of James and Jesus has always been a dis-
since in addition to these, there were many
others who were called apostles, in imitation of
the Twelve, as was Paul himself, he adds :
" Afterward he appeared to all the aposdes." "
So much in regard to these persons. But the
story concerning Thaddeus is as follows.
puted matter. Three theories have been advanced, and are all
widely represented.
The first is the full-brother hypothesis, according to which the
brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of both Joseph and Mary.
This was .advocated strongly by the heretic Helvidius in Rome m
380, and is widely accepted in the Protestant Church. The only
serious objection to it is the committal of Mary to the care of John
by Christ upon the cross. But John was at any rate an own cousin
of Jesus, and the objection loses its weight when we realize the
spiritual sympathy which existed between Jesus and John, and the
lack of belief exhibited by his own brothers. The second is the half-
brother hypothesis, which regards the brethren and sisters of Jesus
as children of Joseph by a former wife. This has the oldest tradi-
tion in its favor (though the tradition for none of the theories is old
or universal enough to be of great weight), the apocryphal Gospel
of Jatnesi chap, ix., recording that Joseph was a widower and had
children before marrying Mary. It is still the established theory in
the Greek Church. The greatest objection to it is that if it be true,
Christ, as a younger son of Joseph, could not have been regarded
as the heir to the throne of David. That the objection is absolutely
fatal cannot be asserted, for it is nowhere clearly stated that he was
the heir-apparent to the throne; it is said only that he was of the
line of David. Both of these theories agree in distinguishing James,
the brother of the Lord, from James, the son of Alpha;us, the
apostle, and thus assume at least three Jameses in the New Tes-
tament. Over against both of them is to be mentioned a third,
which assumes only two Jameses, regarding the brethren of the Lord
as his cousins, and identifying them with the sons of Alphaeus.
This theory originated with Jerome in 383 a.d. with the confessedly
dogmatic object of preserving the virginity both of Mary and of
Joseph in opposition to Helvidius. Since his time it has been the
established theory in the Latin Church, and is advocated also by
many Protestant scholars. The original and common form of the
theory makes Jesus and James maternal cousins: finding only three
women in John xix. 25, and regarding Mary, the wife of Clopas, as
the sister of the Virgin Mary. But this is in itself improbable and
rests upon poor exegesis. It is far better to assume that four women
are mentioned in this passage. A second form of the cousin theory,
which regards Jesus and James as paternal cousins — making Al-
phaeus (Clopas) the brother of Joseph — originated with Lange.
It is very ingenious, and urges in its support the authority of
Hegesippus, who, according to Eusebius (//. E. III. 11), says that
Clopas was the brother of Joseph and the father of Simeon, which
would make the latter the brother of James, and thus just as truly
the brother of the Lord as he. But Hegesippus plainly thinks of
James and of .Simeon as standing in different relations to Christ, —
the former his brother, the latter his cousin, — and therefore his
testimony is against, rather than for Lange's hypothesis. The state-
ment of Hegesippus, indeed, expresses the cousinship of Christ with
James the Little, the son of Clopas (if Alphaeus and Clopas be iden-
tified), but does not identify this cousin with James the brother of
the Lord. Eusebius also is claimed by Lange as a witness to his
theorjf, but his exegesis of the passage to which he appeals is poor
(see below, Bk. IV. chap. 22, note 4). Against both forms of the
cousin theory may be urged the natural meaning of the word attk-
<f>6i, and also the statement of John vii. 5, " Neither did his brethren
believe in him," which makes it impossible to suppose that his
brothers were apostles. From this fatal objection both of the
brother hypotheses are free, and either of them is possible, but the
former rests upon a more natural interpretation of the various pas-
sages involved, and would perhaps have been universally accepted
had it not been for the dogmatic interest felt by the early Church in
preserving the virginity of Mary. Renan's complicated theory (see
his Les Evangiles, p. 537 sqq.) does not help matters at all, and
need not be discussed here. There is much to be said, however, in
favor of the separation of Alphaeus and Clopas, upon which he
insists and which involves the existence of four Jameses instead of
only three.
For a fuller discussion of this whole subject, see Andrews {Life
of our Lord, pp. 104-116), Schafif (C//«r(r// Hist. I. 272-275), and
Weiss {Ei>ileit»ng in das iV. T. p. 388 sqq.) , all of whom defend the
natural brother hypothesis; Lightfoot (Excursus upon " The Breth-
ren of the Lord " in his Commentary on Galatians, 2d ed. p.
247-282), who is the strongest advocate of the half-brother theory;
^Iill {The Accounts of our Lord's Brethren in the N. T.
vindicated, Cambridge, 1843), who maintains the maternal cousjn
theory; and Lange (in Herzog), who presents the paternal cousin
hypothesis. Compare finally Holtzmann's article in the Zeitschrifl
fur ll'iss. Theologie, 1880, p. 198 sqq.
1^ I Cor. XV. 7.
H 2
lOO
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
CI. 13.
CHAPTER XIII.
Narrative concerning the Prince of the Edes-
senes.
1 The divinity of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ being noised abroad among all
men on account of his wonder-working power,
he attracted countless numbers from foreign
countries lying far away from Judea, who had the
hope of being cured of their diseases and
2 of all kinds of sufferings. For instance,
the King Abgarus/ who ruled with great
glory the nations beyond the Euphrates, being
afflicted with a terrible disease which it was be-
yond the power of human skill to cure, when he
heard of the name of Jesus, and of his mira-
cles, which were attested by all with one accord,
sent a message to him by a courier and
3 begged him to heal his disease. But he
did not at that time comply with his re-
quest ; yet he deemed him worthy of a personal
letter in which he said that he would send one
of his disciples to cure his disease, and at the
same time promised salvation to himself
4 and all his house. Not long afterward his
promise was fulfilled. For after his resur-
rection from the dead and his ascent into heaven,
Thomas,^ one of the twelve apostles, under
divine impulse sent Thaddeus, who was also
numbered among the seventy disciples of Christ,^
to Edessa,* as a preacher and evangelist of the
teaching of Christ. And all that our Saviour
had promised received through him its
5 fulfillment. You have written evidence of
these things taken from the archives of
Edessa,^ which was at that time a royal city.
* Abgarus was the name of several kings of Edessa, who reigned
at various periods from B.C. 99 to a.d. 217. The Abgar contempo-
rary with Christ was called Abgar Ucomo, or " the Black." He was
the fifteenth king, and reigned, according to Gutschmid, from
A.D. 13 to A.D. 50. A great many ecclesiastical fictions have grown
up around his name, the story, contained in its simplest form in the
present chapter, being embellished with many marvelous additions.
A starting-point for this tradition of the correspondence with Christ,
— from which in turn grew all the later legends, — may be found in
the fact that in the latter part of the second century there was a
Christian Abgar, King of Edessa, at whose court Bardcsanes, the
Syrian Gnostic, enjoyed high favor, and it is certain that Christian-
ity had found a foothold in this region at a much earlier period.
Soon after the time of this Abgar the pretended correspondence was
very likely forged, and foisted back upon the Abgar who was con-
temporary with Christ. Compare Cureton's Aiic. Syn'ac Doc/t-
}?ti'nts relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in
Edessa, London, 1864.
- On the traditions in regard to Thomas, see Bk. III. chap i.
^ See chap. 12, note 11.
* Edessa, the capital of Abgar's dominions, was a city of North-
ern Mesopotamia, near the river Euphrates. History knows noth-
ing of the city before the time of the Seleucida;, though tradition
puts its origin back into distant antiquity, and some even identify it
with Abraham's original home, Ur of the Chaldees. In the history
of the Christian Church it played an important part as a centre of
Syrian learning. Ephraem, the Syrian, founded a seminary there
in the fourth century, which after his death fell into the hands of the
Arians.
'' We have no reason to doubt that Eusebius, who is the first to
mention these apocryphal epistles, really found them in the public
archives at Edessa. Moses Chorenensis, the celebrated .Armenian
historian of the fifth century, who studied a long time in Edessa, is
an independent witnesss to their existence in the Edessene archives.
Eusebius has been accused of forging this correspondence himself;
For in the public registers there, which contain
accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus,
these things have been found preserved down to
the present time. But there is no better way
than to hear the epistles themselves which we
have taken from the archives and have literally
translated from the Syriac language*^ in the fol-
lowing manner.
Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler
to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by Ana-
nias' the stuift courier.
" Abgarus, ruler of Edessa, to Jesus the 6
excellent Saviour who has appeared in the
country of Jerusalem, greeting. I have heard the
reports of thee and of thy cures as performed by
thee without medicines or herbs. For it is said
that thou makest the blind to see and the lame to
walk, that thou cleansest lepers and castest out
impure spirits and demons, and that thou healest
those afflicted with lingering disease, and
raisest the dead. And having heard all 7
these things concerning thee, I have con-
cluded that one of two things must be true :
either thou art God, and having come down
from heaven thou doest these things, or else
thou, who doest these things, art the Son
of God.^ I have therefore written to thee 8
to ask thee that thou wouldest take the
trouble to come to me and heal the disease
which I have. For I have heard that the Jews
are murmuring against thee and are plotting to
injure thee. But I have a very small yet noble
city which is great enough for us both."
but this unworthy suspicion has been refuted by the discovery and
publication of the original Syriac ( The Doct. of Addai the Apostle,
with an English Translation and Notes, by G. Phillips, London,
1876; compare also Co«^t';«/. ^(T'., May, 1877, p. 1137). The epis-
tles were forged probably long before his day, and were supposed by
him to be genuine. His critical insight, but not his honesty, was at
fault. The apocryphal character of these letters is no longer a mat-
ter of dispute, though Cave and Grabe defended their genuineness
(so that Eusebius is in good company), and even in the present cen-
tury Rinck {Ucber die Echtheit dcs Briefioechscls dcs Kunigs
Abgars inii Jesit, Zcitschrift fiir Hist. Tliecl., 1S43, H. p. 3-
26) has had the hardihood to enter the lists in their defense; but we
know of no one else who values his critical reputation so little as to
venture upon the task.
'' Eusebius does not say directly that he translated these docu-
ments himself, but this seems to be the natural conclusion to be
drawn from his words. 'Hmit is used only with a.va.\-i\i\>B<Li.aMv, and
not with ^ieTa)3Aj)6tio-a)r. It is impossible, therefore, to decide wilh
certainty; but the documents must have been in Syriac in the Edes-
sene archives, and Eusebius' words imply that, if he did not trans-
late them himself, he at least employed some one else to do it. At
the end of this chapter he again uses an indefinite expression, where
perhaps it might be expected that he would tell us directly if ho had
himself translated the documents.
" In the greatly embellished narrative of Cedrenus {Hist. Com-
pendium, p. 176; according to Wright, in his article on Abgar in
the Did. of Christian Biog.) this Ananias is represented as an
artist who endeavored to take the portrait of Christ, but was dazzled
by the splendor of his countenance; whereupon Christ, haying
washed his face, wiped it with a towel, which miraculously retained
an image of his features. The picture thus secured was carried back
to Edessa, and acted as a charm for the preservation of the city
against its enemies. The marvelous fortunes of the miraculous pic-
ture are traced by Cedrenus through some centuries (see also Eva-
grius, //. E. IV. 27).
* The expression " Son of God " could not be used by a heathen
prince as it is used here.
I. I3-]
ABGARUS, PRINCE OF EDESSA.
lOI
The answer of Jesus to the ruler Abgarus by the
courier Ananias.
9 "Blessed art thou who hast believed in
me without having seen me.^ For it is
written concerning me, that they who have seen
me will not believe in me, and that they who
have not seen me will believe and be saved.^°
But in regard to what thou hast written me, that
I should come to thee, it is necessary for me to
fulfill all things here for which I have been sent,
and after I have fulfilled them thus to be taken
up again to him that sent me. But after I have
been taken up I will send to thee one of my
disciples, that he may heal thy disease and give
Hfe to thee and thine."
10 To these epistles there was added the
following account in the Syriac language.
" After the ascension of Jesus, Judas," who was
also called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an
apostle,^^ one of the Seventy. When he was
come he lodged with Tobias,^^ the son of Tobias.
When the report of him got abroad, it was told
Abgarus that an apostle of Jesus was come,
11 as he had written him. Thaddeus began
then in the power of God to heal every
disease and infirmity, insomuch that all wondered.
And when Abgarus heard of the great and won-
derful things which he did and of the cures which
he performed, he began to suspect that he was
the one of whom Jesus had written him, saying,
^ Compare John xx. 29.
1" Ye-ypa/TTai, as used by Christ and his disciples, always referred
to the Old Testament. The passage quoted here does not occur in
the Old Testament; but compare Isa. vi. 9, Jer. v. 21, and Ezek. xii.
2; and also Matt. xiii. 14, Mark iv. 12, and especially Acts xxviii.
26-28 and Rom. xi. 7 sq.
^' Thomas is not commonly known by the name of Judas, and it
is possible that Eusebius, or the translator of the document, made a
mistake, and applied to Thomas a name which in the original was
given to Thaddeus. But Thomas is called Judas Thomas in the
Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, and in the Syriac Doctrina Aposto-
lormn, published by Cureton.
1- The word " apostle " is by no means confined to the twelve
apostles of Christ, The term was used very commonly in a much
wider sense, and yet the combination, " the apostle, one of the
Seventy," in this passage, does not seem natural, and we can-
not avoid the conclusion that the original author of this account
did not thus describe Thaddeus. The designation, "one of the
Seventy," carries the mind back to Christ's own appointment of
them, recorded by Luke, and the term " apostle," used in the
same connection, would naturally denote one of the Twelve ap-
pointed by Christ, — that is, an apostle in the narrow sense. It
might be suggested as possible that the original Syriac connected
the word "apostle" with Thomas, reading, "Thomas the apostle
sent Judas, who is also called Thaddeus, one of the Seventy," &c.
Such a happy confusion is not beyond the power of an ancient
translator, for most of whom little can be said in the way of praise.
That this can have been the case in the present instance, however,
is rendered extremely improbable by the fact that throughout this
account Thaddeus is called an apostle, and we should therefore ex-
pect the designation upon the first mention of him. It seems to me
much more probable that the words, " one of the Seventy," are an
addition of Eusebius, who has already, in two places (§ 4, above,
and chap. 12, § 3), told us that Thaddeus was one of them. It is
probable that the original Syriac preserved the correct tradition of
Thaddeus as one of the Twelve; while Eusebius, with his false tra-
dition of him as one of the Seventy, takes pains to characterize him
as such, when he is first introduced, but allows the word " apostle,"
so common in its wider sense, to stand throughout. He does not
intend to correct the Syriac original; he simply defines Thaddeus,
as he understands him, more closely.
^^ Tobias was very likely a Jew, or of Jewish extraction, the
name being a familiar one among the Hebrews. This might have
been the reason that Thaddeus (.if he went to Edessa at all) made
his home with him.
' After I have been taken up I will send to thee
one of my disciples who will heal thee.'
Therefore, summoning Tobias, with whom 12
Thaddeus lodged, he said, I have heard
that a certain man of power has come and is
lodging in thy house. Bring him to me. And
Tobias coming to Thaddeus said to him. The
ruler Abgarus summoned me and told me to
bring thee to him that thou mightst heal him.
And Thaddeus said, I will go, for I have
been sent to him with power. Tobias 13
therefore arose early on the following day,
and taking Thaddeus came to Abgarus. And
when he came, the nobles were present and
stood about Abgarus. And immediately upon
his entrance a great vision appeared to Abgarus
in the countenance of the apostle Thaddeus.
When Abgarus saw it he prostrated himself be-
fore Thaddeus, while all those who stood about
were astonished ; for they did not see the
vision, which appeared to Abgarus alone, 14
He then asked Thaddeus if he were in
truth a disciple of Jesus the Son of God, who
had said to him, * I will send thee one of my
disciples, who shall heal thee and give thee life.*
And Thaddeus said. Because thou hast mightily
believed in him that sent me, therefore have I
been sent unto thee. And still further, if thou
believest in him, the petitions of thy heart
shall be granted thee as thou believest. And 15
Abgarus said to him. So much have I be-
lieved in him that I wished to take an army and
destroy those Jews who cracified him, had I not
been deterred from it by reason of the dominion
of the Romans. And Thaddeus said, Our Lord
has fulfilled the will of his Father, and having
fulfilled it has been taken up to his Father. And
Abgarus said to him, I too have believed in
him and in his Father. And Thaddeus said 16
to him, Therefore I place my hand upon
thee in his name. And when he had done it,
immediately Abgarus was cured of the dis-
ease and of the suffering which he had. And 17
Abgarus marvelled, that as he had heard
concerning Jesus, so he had received in very
deed through his disciple Thaddeus, who healed
him without medicines and herbs, and not only
him, but also Abdus" the son of Abdus, who
was afflicted with the gout ; for he too came to
him and fell at his feet, and having received a
benediction by the imposition of his hands, he
was healed. The same Thaddeus cured also
many other inhabitants of the city, and did
wonders and marvelous works, and preached
i-* Moses Chorenensis reads instead (according to Rinck), " Pota-
grus, the son of Acdas." Rinck thinks it probable that Eusebius
or the translator made a mistake, confusing the Syrian name Pota-
grus with the Greek word TroSaypa, " a sort of gout," and then in-
serting a second Abdas. The word " Podagra " is Greek and could
not have occurred in the Armenian original, and therefore Eusebius
Is to be corrected at this point by Moses Chorenensis (Rinck, ibid.
p. i8). The Greek reads 'A|3So>' ^hv toO 'A/Siou noSaypav ix°^'^'>--
102
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[I- 1:
18 the word of God. And afterward Abgarus
said, Thou, O Thaddeus, doest these things
with the power of God, and we marvel. But, in
addition to these things, I pray thee to inform
me in regard to the coming of Jesus, how he
was born ; and in regard to his power, by what
power he performed those deeds of which
19 I have heard. And Thaddeus said. Now
indeed will I keep silence, since I have
been sent to proclaim the word publicly. Kut
to-morrow assemble for me all thy citizens, and
I will preach in their presence and sow among
them the word of God, concerning the coming
of Jesus, how he was born ; and concerning his
mission, for what purpose he was sent by the
Father ; and concerning the power of his works,
and the mysteries which he proclaimed in the
world, and by what power he did these things ;
and concerning his new preaching, and his
abasement and humiliation, and how he hum-
bled himself, and died and debased his divinity
and was crucified, and descended into Hades,^^
'5 This is probably the earliest distinct and formal statement of
the descent into Hades; but no special stress is laid upon it as a
new doctrine, and it is stated so much as a matter of course as to
show that it was commonly accepted at Edessa at the time of the
writing of these records, that is certainly as early as the third cen-
tury. Justin, Irena;us, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, TertuUian,
&c., all witness to the belief of the Church in this doctrine, though
it did not form an article in any of the older creeds, and appeared in
the East first in certain Arian confessions at about 360 a.d. In the
West it appeared first in the Aquileian creed, from which it was
transferred to the Apostles' creed in the fifth century or later.
The doctrine is stated in a very fantastic shape in the Gospel of
Nicodoiius, part II. {Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p.
435 sq.), which is based upon an apocryphal gospel of the second
century, according to Tischendorf. In it the descent of Christ into
Hades and his ascent with a great multitude are dwelt upon at
length. Compare Pearson, On the Creed, p. 340 sq.; Schaff's
and burst the bars which from eternity had not
been broken,'*^ and raised the dead ; for he de-
scended alone, but rose with many, and
thus ascended to his Father.^" Abgarus 20
therefore commanded the citizens to assem-
ble early in the morning to hear the preaching
of Thaddeus, and afterward he ordered gold and
silver to be given him. But he refused to take
it, saying, If we have forsaken that which was
our own, how shall we take that which is an-
other's ? These things were done in the three
hundred and fortieth year." ^^
I have inserted them here in their proper
place, translated from the Syriac '^'^ literally, and
I hope to good purpose.
Creeds of Christendom, I. p. 46; and especially, Plumptre's Spirits
in Prison, p. 77 sq.
1" Compare the Gospel of Nicodemus, II. 5.
17 KttTa^as yap ix6vo<; crvvqyupiv TroAAoi)?, €iS' ovTws a.vi^r\ jrpbs
Toi" narepa aiiToii. Other MSS. read KaTt^t) fi6fo<;, avifir] Si ikto.
TToAAoO bx^ov Trpbs rhv iraTepa aiiTov. Rufinus translates Q7ii de-
scendit qiiidetn solus, ascendit antein cum grand! mnlti-
tudine ad patrcnt siiuni. Compare the words of Cyril of Jerusa-
lem {_Catech. IV. 11): xcT^KSiv ei? ra Ka.Ta.\&6via, iva. KoKelOfv
Avrpuio-qraL tou? SLKa(.ov<;, " He descended into the depths, that he
might ransom thence the just."
18 According to the Chronicle of Eusebius (ed. Schoene, II.
p. ii5) the Edessenes dated their era from the year of Abraham
1706 (B.C. 310), which corresponded with the second yearof the one
hundred and seventeenth Olympiad (or, according to the Armenian,
to the third year of the same Olympiad), the time when Seleucus Ni-
canor began to rule in Syria. According to this reckoning the 340th
year of the Edessenes would correspond with ihe year of Abraham
2046, the reign of Tiberius 16 (a.d. 30) ; that is, the second year of the
two hundred and second Olympiad (or, according to the Armenian,
the third year of the same). According to the Chronicle of Eusebius,
Jesus was crucified in the nineteenth year of Tiberius (year of Abra-
ham 204S = A.D. 32) , according to Jerome's version in the eighteenlh
year (year of Abraham 2047= a.d. 31). Thus, as compared with
these authorities, the 340th year of the Edessenes falls too early.
P>ut TertuUian, Lactantius, Augustine, and others put Christ's death
in 783 u.c, that is in 30 a.d., and this corresponds with the Edessene
reckoning as given by Eusebius. i'-' See note 6.
BOOK 11.
INTRODUCl'lON.
1 Wk have discussed in the preceding
book those subjects in ecclesiastical history
which it was necessary to treat by way of intro-
duction, and have accompanied them with
brief proofs. Such were the divinity of the
saving Word, and the antiquity of the doctrines
which we teach, as well as of that evangelical
life which is led by Christians, together with
the events which have taken place in connection
with Christ's recent appearance, and in con-
nection with his passion and with the choice
2 of the apostles. In the present book let
us examine the events which took place
after his ascension, confirming some of them
from the divine Scriptures, and others from
such writings as we shall refer to from time
to time.
CHAPTER I.
The Course pursued by the Apostles after the
Aseeiision of Christ.
1 First, then, in the place of Judas, the
betrayer, jNIatthias, ^ who, as has been
shown,- was also one of the Seventy, was
chosen to the apostolatc. And there were ap-
pointed to the diaconate,-'' for the sendee of
1 See Acts i. 23-26. ~ Bk. I. chap. 12, § 2.
-» The view that the Seven were deacons appears first in Ire-
nseus {adz'. Hier. I. 26. 3; III. 12. 10; IV. 15. i), then in Cyprian
{Ep. 64. 3)5 and was the commonly accepted opinion of the Roman
Church in the third century (for, while they had forty-six presbyters,
they had only seven deacons; see below, Bk. VI. chap. 43), and has
been ever since almost universally accepted. In favor of the identi-
fication are urged this early and unanimous tradition, the similarity
of the duties assigned to the Seven and to later deacons, and the
use of the words Sca/con'a and ht.o.Kovf.'iv in connection with the
" Seven" in Acts vi. It must be remarked, however, that ancient
tradition is not unanimously in favor of the identification, for Chrys-
ostom yHomily XIV. on Acts) denies it; still further, the func-
tions of the Seven and of later deacons were not identical, for the
former were put in charge of the financial affairs of the Jerusalem
church, while the latter acted simply as bishops' assistants. In fact,
it was the bishop of the second century, not the deacon, that had
charge of the church finances. And finally, no weight can be laid
upon the use of the terms SiaKofetf and hi.a.Kovia. in connection with
the Seven, for these words are used always in a general, never
in an official sense in other parts of the Acts and of the New
Testament, and, what is still more decisive, the same word (Siaxona)
is used in the same passage in connection with the apostles; the
Seven are "to serve tables" (StaKoi-eii/ rai? Tpa77tfai;) , the apos-
tles are to give themselves to "the service of the word" ((5ia-
Kovia. ToO Aoyou). There is just as much reason, therefore, on
linguistic grounds, for calling the apostles " deacons " as for giv-
ing that name to the Seven. On the other hand, against the opinion
that the Seven were deacons, are to be urged the facts that they
are never called " deacons " by Luke or by any other New Tes-
tament writer; that we are nowhere told, in the New Testament
or out of it, that there were deacons in the Jerusalem church,
the congregation, by prayer and the laying on
of the hands of the apostles, approved men,
although Luke had many opportunities to call the Seven " dea-
cons " if he had considered them such; and finally, that according
to Epiphanius (I/ar. XXX. 18), the Ebionitic churches of Pales-
tine in his time had only presbyters and Archisynagogi {ckii-fs 0/
the synagogue). These Ebionites were the Jewish Christian reac-
tionaries who refused to advance with the Church catholic in its
normal development; it is therefore at least significant that tl-.ere
were no deacons among them in the fourth century.
In view of these considerations I feel compelled to doubt the tradi-
tional identification, although it is accepted without dissent by almost
all scholars (cf. e.g. Lightfoot's article on The Chrisiuxn Ministry
iri his Coiinnentitry on Phili/>/>inns). There remain but two possi-
bilities: either the Seven constituted a merely temporary commit-
tee (as held by Chrysostom, and in modern times, among others,
by Vitringa, in his celebrated work on the Synagogue, and by Stan-
ley in his Essays on the Apostolic Age) ; or they were the origi-
nals of permanent officers in the Church, other than deacons. The
former alternative is possible, but the emphasis which Luke lays
upon the appointment is against it, as also the fact that the very duties
which these men were chosen to perform were such as would in-
crease rather than diminish with the growth of the Church, and such
as would therefore demand the creation of a new and similar com-
mittee if the old were not continued.
In favor of the second alternative there is, it seems to me, much
to be said. The limits of this note forbid a full discussion of the sub-
ject. But it may be urged: First, that we find in the Acts frequent
mentionof abody ofmen in the Jerusalem church known as " elders."
Of the appointment of these elders we have no account, and yet
it is clear that they cannot have been in existence when the apostles
proposed the appointment of the Seven. Secondly, although the
Seven were such prominent and influential men, they are not
once mentioned as a body in the subsequent chapters of the Acts,
while, whenever we should expect to find them referred to with the
apostles. It is always the "elders" that are mentioned. Finally,
when the elders appear for the first time (Acts xi. 30), we find
them entrusted with the same duties which the Seven were origi-
nally appointed to perform : they receive the alms sent by the church
of Antioch. It is certainly, to say the least, a very natural conclu-
sion that these " elders" occupy the office of whose institution we
read in Acts vi.
Against this identification of the Seven with the ciders of the
Jerusalem church it might be urged: First, that Luke does not
call them elders. But it is quite possible that they were not called
by that name at first, and yet later acquired it; and in that case, in
referring to them in later times, people would naturally call the first
appointed " the Seven," to distinguish them from their successors,
"the elders," — the well-known and frequently mentioned officers
whose number may well have been increased as the church grew.
It is thus easier to account for Luke's omission of the name " elder,"
than it would be to account for his omission of the name " deacon,"
if they were deacons. In the second place, it might be objected that
the duties which the Seven were appointed to perform were not
commensurate with those which fell to the lot of the elders as
known to us. This objection, however, loses its weight when we real-
ize that the same kind of a development went on in connection with
the bishop, as has been most clearly pointed out by Hatch in his Or-
ganization of the Early Christian Churches, and by Harnack in
his translation of that work and in his edition of the Teaching 0/ the
Apostles. Moreover, in the case of the Seven, who were evi-
dently the chiefest men in the Jerusalem church after the apostles,
and at the same time were " full of the Spirit," it was very natural
that, as the apostles gradually scattered, the successors of these
Seven should have committed to them other duties besides the
purely financial ones.
The theory presented in this note is not a novel one. It was
suggested first by Bohmer (in his Diss. Juris eccles.), who was
followed by Ritschl (in his Entstchung dcr alt-kath. k'irchr),
and has been accepted in a somewhat modified form by Lange (in
his Af'ostolisches Zcitaltcr), and by Lechler (in his Apost. und
Nachapost. Zeitaltcr). Before learning that the theory had been
proposed by others, I liad myself adopted it and had embodied it in
a more elaborate form in a paper read before a ministerial associa-
tion in the spring of 1888. My confidence in its validity has of
course been increased by the knowledge that it has been maintained
by the eminent scholars referred to above.
I04
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. I.
seven in number, of whom Stephen was one.^
He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at
the time of his ordination by the slayers of the
Lord, as if lie had been promoted for this very
purpose.'* And thus he was the first to receive
the crown, corresponding to his name,^ which
belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are
2 worthy of the meed of victory. Then James,
whom the ancients surnamed the Just^
on account of the excellence of his virtue, is
recorded .to have been the first to be made
bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James
was called the brother of the Lord '^ because he
was known as a son of Joseph,^ and Joseph was
supposed to be the father of Christ, because the
Virgin, being betrothed to him, " was found with
child by the Holy Ghost before they came
together," ^ as the account of the holy
3 Gospels shows. But Clement in the sixth
book of his Hypotyposes ^° writes thus :
" For they say that Peter and James and John
after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also
preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor,
but chose James the Just bishop of Jeru-
4 salem." " But the same writer, in the
seventh book of the same work, relates
also the following things concerning him : ''The
Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge
to James the Just and to John and Peter, and
they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and
the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom
Barnabas was one.'- But there were two
Jameses : ^^ one called the Just, who was thrown
^ See Acts vi. i-6. ■• See Acts vii.
^ <7T£(f)ai'os, " a crown."
* James is not called the " Just " in the New Testament, but Hege-
sippus (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23) says that he was called
thus by all from the time of Christ, on account of his great piety,
and it is by this name that he is known throughout history.
' See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13.
8 Eusebius' testimony is in favor of the half-brother theory; for
had he considered James the son of Mary, he could not have spoken
in this way. '•* Matt. i. 18.
'" On Clement's Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3.
On Clement's life and writings, see Bk. V. chap. 11.
^* aAA' 'Ia«io^oi' Toi' hiKaiov kiritTKonov ToJu'lepocroXv^Xiou eAea"0at,
as the majority of the MSB. and editions read. Laemmcr, followed
by Heinichen, substitutes yevicrOai. for kXiadai on the authority of
two important codices. The other reading, however, is as well, if
not better, supported.
How soon after the ascension of Christ, James the Just assumed
a leading position in the church of Jerusalem, we do not know.
He undoubtedly became prominent very soon, as Paul in 37 (or
40) A.D. sees him in addition to Peter on visiting Jerusalem. But
we do not know of his having a position of leadership until the
Jerusalem Council in 51 (Acts xv. and Gal. ii.), where he is one
of the three pillars, standing at least upon an equality in influence
with Peter and John. But this very expression " three pillars of
the Church " excludes the supposition that he was bishop of the
Church in the modern sense of the term — he was only one of the
rulers of the Church. Indeed, we have abundant evidence from
other sources that the monarchical episcopacy was nowhere known
at that early age. It was the custom of all writers of the second
century and later to throw back into the apostolic age their own
church organization, and hence we hear of bishops appointed by
the apostles in various churches where we know that the episco-
pacy was a second century growth.
1' See above, Bk. 1. chap. 12, note 3.
'^ Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord,
with James, the son of Alpha;us (compare the words just above:
" These delivered it to the rest of the apostles," in which the word
" apostles," on account of the " Seventy " just following, seems to
be used in a narrow sense, and therefore this James to be one of the
Twelve) , and he is thus cited as a witness to the cousin hypothesis
(see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13), Papias, too, in a fragment
from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten
to death with a club by a fuller," and another
who was beheaded." ^^ Paul also makes men-
tion of the same James the Just, where he
writes, " Other of the apostles saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother."'^ At that 5
time also the promise of our Saviour to
the king of the Osrhoenians was fulfilled. For
Thomas, under a divine impulse, sent Thaddeus
to Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the
religion of Christ, as we have shown a little
above from the document found there.^''
When he came to that place he healed 7
Abgarus by the word of Christ; and after
bringing all the people there into the right
attitude of mind by means of his works, and
leading them to adore the power of Christ, he
made them disciples of the Saviour's teaching.
And from that time down to the present the
whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted
to the name of Christ,^* offering no common
proof of the beneficence of our Saviour
toward them also. These things have 8
been drawn from ancient accounts ; but
let us now turn again to the divine Scripture.
When the first and greatest persecution was
instigated by the Jews against the church of
Jenisalem in connection with the martyrdom of
Stephen, and when all the disciples, except the
Twelve, were scattered throughout Judea and
Samaria, ^^ some, as the divine Scripture says,
went as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch,
but could not yet venture to impart the word
of faith to the nations, and therefore
preached it to the Jews alone.^ During 9
this time Paul was still persecuting the
church, and entering the houses of believers
was dragging men and women away and
committing them to prison.-^ Philip also, 10
one of those who with Stephen had been
entrusted with the diaconate, being among
those who were scattered abroad, went down
to Samaria," and being filled with the divine
power, he first preached the word to the in-
habitants of that country. And divine grace
worked so mightily with him that even Simon
Magus with many others was attracted by his
given by Routh {Rel. Snc. I. p. i6) identifies the two. But
Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius in chap. 23) e.vpressly states
that there were many of this name, and that he was therefore called
James the Just to distinguish him from others. Eusebius quotes
this passage of Clement with apjiarently no suspicion that it con-
tradicts his own opinion in regard to the relationship of James to
Christ. The contradiction, indeed, appears only upon careful
examination.
" Joscphus {.lilt. XX. g. i) says he was stoned to death. The
account of Clement agrees with that of Hegesippus quoted by Eusc-
scbius in chap. 23, below, which sec.
^■' James, the son of Zebedcc, who was beheaded by Herod
Agrippa I., 44 a.d. See Acts xii. 2, and Bk. II. chap. 9, below.
'" Gal. i. rg. '' See above, Bk. I. chap. 13.
" The date of the introduction of Christianity into Edessa is not
known (see above, Bk. I. chap. 13, notes i and 3), but it was the
seat of a bishop in the third century, and in Eusebius' time was
filled with magnificent churches and monasteries.
^'■' .See Acts viii. i. -■ See Acts viii. 3.
-0 See Acts xi. 19, -- Sec Acts viii. 5,
II. 2.]
PILATE'S REPORT CONCERNING CHRIST.
io5
11 words."^ Simon was at tliat time so cele-
brated, and had acciuired, by his jugglery,
such intlucnce over . those who were deceived
by him, that he was thought to be the great
power of God.-^ But at this time, being
amazed at the wonderful deeds wrought by
Philip through the divine i)ower, he feigned and
counterfeited foith in Christ, even going so
12 far as to receive baptism. ^^ And what is
surprising, the same thing is done even to
this day by those who follow his most impure
heresy.-" For they, after the manner of their
forefather, slipping into the Church, like a
pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict
those into whom they are able to infuse the
deadly and terrible poison concealed in them-
selves."'' The most of these have been expelled
as soon as they have been caught in their
wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected by
Peter, received the merited punishment.-**
13 But as the preaching of the Saviour's
Gospel was daily advancing, a certain provi-
dence led from the land of the Ethiopians an
officer of the queen of that country,-''^ for Ethi-
opia even to the present day is ruled, accord-
ing to ancestral custom, by a woman. He,
first among the Gentiles, received of the mys-
teries of the divine word from Philip in con-
sequence of a revelation, and having become
the first-fruits of believers throughout the
world, he is said to have been the first on
returning to his country to proclaim the knowl-
edge of the God of the universe and the life-
^^ See Acts viii. g sqq. Upon Simon, see chap. 13, note 3.
-* Tijj' ixeydXi^i' Svi'atJuv ToO 6eov. Compare Acts viii. 10, which
has 17 Svi'afiii; toO 6eov i] KaXovfxefri MeyaAij. According to Ire-
na;us (I. 23. i) he was called " tlie loftiest of all powers, i.e. the
one who is father over all things " {sitblissiinain virtuion, hoc est,
eujn qui sit nicper omnia Pater) ; according to Justin Martyr,
Apol. I. 26 (see below, chap. 13), toi' npwTov Oeov; according to
the Clementine Homilies (II. 22) he wished to be called " a certain
supreme power of God" (at'wTaxrj tis ^ui'a/ut?). According to the
Clementine Recognitions (II. 7) he was called the " Standing one "
{^hinc ergo Sians afipcllatiir) .
-^ Eusebius here utters the universal belief of the early Church,
which from the subsequent career of Simon, who was considered the
founder of all heresies, and the great arch-heretic himself, read back
into his very conversion the hypocrisy for which he was afterward
distinguished in Church history. The account of the Acts does not
say that his belief was hypocritical, and leaves it to be implied (if it
be implied at all) only from his subsequent conduct in endeavoring
to purchase the gift of God with money.
^ij Eusebius may refer here to the Simonians, an heretical sect
(mentioned by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others),
which recognized him as its founder and leader (though they origi-
nated probably at a later date), and even looked upon him as a God.
They were exceedingly licentious and immoral. Their teachings
gradually assumed a decidedly Gnostic character, and Simon came
to be looked upon as the father of all Gnostics (compare Irena;us,
I. 27. 4), and hence of heretics in general, and as himself the arch-
heretic. Eusebius, therefore, perhaps refers in this place simply to
the Gnostics, or to the heretics in general.
-' Another instance of the e.xternal and artificial conception of
heresy which Eusebius held in common with his age.
-3 Acts viii. tells of no punishment which befell Simon further
than the rebuke of Peter which Hippolytus (Phil. vi. 15) calls a
curse, and which as such may have been regaraed by Eusebius as a
deserved punishment, its eftect clinging to him, and finally bringing
him to destruction (see below, chap. 14, note 8).
^9 Acts viii. 26 sqq. This queen was Candace, according to the
Biblical account; but Candace was the name, not of an individual,
but of a dynasty of queens who ruled in Meroe, an island formed by
two branches of the Nile, south of Egypt. See Pliny, H. JV. VI. 35
(Delphin edition) ; Dion Cassius, LIV. 5; and Strabo, XVII. i. 54
(MuUer's edit., Paris, 1877).
giving sojourn of our Saviour among men ; *^
so that through him in truth the prophecy
obtained its fulfillment, which declares that
" Ethiopia stretcheth out her hand unto
God."^' In addition to these, Paul, that 14
" chosen vessel," ^- " not of men neither
through men, but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ himself and of God the Father who
raised him from the dead," ^'' was appointed an
apostle, being made worthy of the call by a
vision and by a voice which was uttered in a
revelation from heaven."'
CHAPTER II.
Hota Tiberius tuas affected lulicii informed by
Pilate concerning Christ.
And when the wonderful resurrection and 1
ascension of our Saviour were already noised
abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom
which prevailed among the rulers of the prov-
inces, of reporting to the emperor the novel
occurrences which took place in them, in order
that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate
informed Tiberius ^ of the reports which were
noised abroad through all Palestine concerning
the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from
the dead. He gave an account also of 2
other wonders which he had learned of him,
and how, after his death, having risen from the
dead, he was now believed by many to be a
God.^ They say that Tiberius referred the
matter to the Senate,'^ but that they rejected it,
ostensibly because they had not first examined
into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed
s" Irenaius {Adv. Hcer. III. 12. 8) says that this Eunuch re-
turned to Ethiopia and preached there. But by no one else, so far
as I know, is the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia traced back to
him. The first certain knowledge we have of the introduction of
Christianity into Ethiopia is in the fourth century, under Frumen-
tius and yEdesius, of whom Rufinus, I.9, gives the original account;
and yet it is probable that Christianity existed there long before this
time. Compare Neander's Kirckengeschichte, I. p. 46. See also
H. R. Reynolds' article upon the " Ethiopian Church " in Smith
and Wace's Dictionary 0/ Christian. Biography, II. 232 sqq.
^- Acts ix. 15.
s" Gal. i. I.
21 Psa. xviii. 31.
2* See Acts ix. 3 sqq.; xxii. 5 sqq.; xxvi. 12 sqq.; Gal. i. 16;
I Cor. XV. 8-10.
1 That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius is stated also by
Tertullian {Apol, zi), and is in itself quite probable. Justin Mar-
tyr {Apol. I. 35 and 48) mentions certain Acts 0/ Pilate as well
known in his day, but the so-called ^c/i 0/ Pilate which are still
extant in various forms are spurious, and belong to a much later
period. They are very fanciful and curious. The most important
of these Acts is that which is commonly known under the title of the
Cospel of Nicodemiis. There are also extant numerous spurious
epistles of Pilate addressed to Herod, to Tiberius, to Claudius, &c.
The extant Acts and Epistles are collected in Tischendorf's Evaiig.
Apoc, and most of them are translated by Cowner in his Apocryphal
Gospels. See also the Antc-Nicene Fathers, Am. cd., VIII. p.
416 sqq. Compare the excellent article of Lipsius upon the Apoc-
ryphal Gospels in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. II. p. 707 sqq., also
the Prolegomena of Tischendorf, p. Ixii sqq.
- The existing Report 0/ Pilate (translated in the Atite-Nicene
Fathers, ibid. p. 460, 461) answers well to Eusebius' description, con-
taining as it does a detailed account of Christ's miraclesand of his
resurrection. According to Tischendorf, however, it is in its pres-
ent form of a much later date, but at the same time is very likely
based upon the form which Eusebius saw, and has been changed by
interpolations and additions. See the Prolegomena of Tischendorf
referred to in the previous note. * See below, note 12,
io6
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II.
that no one should be made a God by the Ro-
mans except by a vote and decree of the Senate),
but in reahty because the saving teaching of the
divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and
recommendation of men.
3 But although the Senate of the Romans
rejected the proposition made in regard to
our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion
which he had held at first, and contrived
4 no hostile measures against Christ.* These
things are recorded by TertuUian,^ a man
well versed in the laws of the Romans,*^ and in
other respects of high repute, and one of those
especially distinguished in Rome.'' In his
apology for the Christians,"^ which was writ-
ten by him in the Latin language, and has
been translated into Greek,'' he writes as fol-
■* That Tiberius did not persecute the Christians is a fact; but
this was simply because they attracted no notice during his reign,
and not because of his respect for them or of his belief in Christ.
* TertuUian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second
century. The common opinion is that he was born about 1 60, but
Lipsius pushes the date back toward the beginning of the fifties, and
some even into the forties. For a recent study of the subject, see
Ernst Noldechen in the Zeitschrift fur ivisseiischaftliche Thcol-
ogie, 1886, Heft 2. He concludes that he was born about 150 and
lived until about 230. Tertullian's father was a Roman centurion,
and he himself became a lawyer and rhetorician in Rome. He was
converted to Christianity probably between 180 and 190, and accord-
ing to Jerome, became a presbyter and continued as such until
middle life (whether in Rome or in Carthage we cannot tell; prob-
ably in the latter, for he certainly spent the later years of his life,
while he was a Montanist, in Carthage, and also a considerable part
of his earlier life, as his writings indicate), when he went over to
INIontanism (probably about 200 a.d.), and died at an advanced age
(220-f). That he was a presbyter rests only upon the authority of
Jerome {de vir. ill. 53), and is denied by some Roman Catholic
historians in the interest of clerical celibacy, for TertuUian was a
married man. He wrote a great number of works, — ajjologetic,
polemic, and practical — a few in Greek, but most of them in Latin,
— and many of the Latin ones are still extant. The best edition of
them is by Oehler, Leipzig, 1853, in three volumes. Vol. HL con-
tains valuable dissertations upon the life and works of TertuUian by
various writers. An English translation of his works is given in
the Antc-Xiccnc Fathers, Vols. HL and IV. 1-125. Our main
sources for a knowledge of his life are his own writini;s,and Jerome's
de vir. ill. chap. 53. For a fuller account of TertuUian, see any of
the larger Church histories, and especially a good monograph by
A. Hauck, Tertullian's Lebcu iind Schriftcn, Erlangen, 1877.
For the literature, see SchafTs Church Hist. IL p. 818.
•' His accurate acquaintance with the laws of the Romans is not
very conspicuous in his writings. His books lead us to think that
as a lawyer he must have been noted rather for brilliancy and fer-
tility of resource than for erudition. And this conclusion is borne
out by his own description of his life before his conversion, which
seems to have been largely devoted to pleasure, and thus to have
hardly admitted the acquirement of extensive and accurate learn-
ing.
7 Kal tZ^v fJid\i(rTa ctti *Puijit7]5 AajULTrpwr. Rufinus translates
inter nostras Scriptorcs cchberrimics, and Valesius inter Latinos
Scriptores cclcbcrrijnus, taking cttI 'PuJ^itj; to mean the Latin lan-
guage. But this is not the literal translation of the words of Euse-
bius. He says expressly, oite of tlie especially distinguished men
in Koine. I'rom his work de citltu Ju'tninaruin, Lib. L chap. 7,
we know that he had spent some time in Rome, and his acquaintance
with the Roman records would imply a residence of some duration
there. He very likely practiced law and rhetoric in Rome until his
conversion.
8 Tertullian's Apology ranks first among his extant works, and
is " one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic age of the
Church " (SchafQ . The date of its composition is greatly disputed,
though it must have been written during the reign of Septimius
Scvcrus, and almost all scholars arc agreed in assigning it to the
years 197-204. Since the investigations of JJonwctsch ( Die Schriften
Tertullian's, Bonn, 1878), of Harnack (in the Zeitsclirift fur
K ircheiigescliichte , 1878, p. 572 sqq.), and of Niildechen (in Ocb-
hardt and Harnack's Texte nnd Uutersuchungen, Hand V. Heft 2) ,
all of whom agree in assigning its composition to the latter part
(summer or fall) of the year 197, its date may be accepted as prac-
tically established.
'•• Some have contended that Euscbius himself translated this pas-
sage from TertuUian, but his words show clearly enough that he
Iuotes from an already existing translation. His knowledge of the
,atin language appears to have been very limited. He must have
had some acquaintance with it, for he translates Hadrian's rescript
lows : ^^ " But in order that we may give an 5
account of these laws from their origin, it
was an ancient decree " that no one should be
consecrated a God by the emperor until the
Senate had expressed its approval. Marcus
Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Al-
burnus.^" And this is a point in favor of our
doctrine,^^ that among you divine dignity is con-
ferred by human decree. If a God does not
please a man he is not made a God. Thus,
according to this custom, it is necessary for
man to be gracious to God. Tiberius, 6
therefore, under whom the name of Christ
made its entry into the world, when this doc-
trine was reported to him from Palestine, where
it first began, communicated with the Senate,
making it clear to them that he was pleased
with the doctrine." But the Senate, since it had
not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But
Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and
threatened death to the accusers of the Chris-
tians."^^ Heavenly providence had wisely in-
stilled this into his mind in order that the doc-
trine of the Gospel, unhindered at its beginning,
might spread in all directions throughout the
world.
to Fundanus from Latin into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV.
chap. 8; but the translation of so brief and simple a piece of writing
would not require a profound knowledge of the language, and there
are good reasons for concluding that he was not a fluent Latin scholar.
For instance, the only work of Tertullian's which he quotes is his
Apology, and he uses only a Greek translation of that. It is not un-
natural to conclude that the rest of Tertullian's works, or at least
the most of them, were not translated, and that Eusebius was not
enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read them in the original
with any degree of ease. Moreover, this conclusion in regard to his
knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small acquaintance which he
shows with the works of Latin writers in general. In fact, he does
not once betray a personal acquaintance with any of the important
Latin works which had been produced before his time, except such
as existed in Greek translations. Compare Heinichen's note in his
edition of Eusebius' History, Vol. HI. p. 128 sqq. The translation
of Tertullian's Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as may be
seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted in
Bk. II. chap. 25, § 4. For the mistakes, however, of course not
Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held respon-
sible.
^^ Tertullian's Apology, chap. 5.
11 Havercamp remarks (in his edition of Tertullian's Apology,
p. 56) that this law is stated in the second book of Cicero's /-V
Lcgibus in the words: Separatiin nemo habessit deos, neve 7iovos;
sed ne advenas nisi publice adsciios privatim colunto.
^- McipKO? 'At)LLtAto9 oi'Tw? Trept Ttro? tiSwAov TreTTOtTjKci/'AAjSoi'p-
I'ou. Latin: Scit !\f. yEniilius de deo sua Alburno. In Adv.
Marcionon, I. 18, TertuUian says, Alioyuin si sic lioino Deuin
coininentabitur, (pioniodo Romulus Consutn, ct Tatius Cloaci-
nam,et Hostiiius Pavorctu, et liletellus Alburnnin, ct ijuidam
ante hoc teinpus Antinouin ; hoc aliis liccbit ; nos Marcioneiu
nauclcruin noviinus, non regent, nee iinperatorcnt.
I cannot discover that this eiSwAo? or Deus Alburnus is men-
tioned by any other writer than TertuUian, nor do I find a reference
to him in any dictionary accessible to me.
'^ Literally," This has been done in behalf of (or for the .sake oQ
our doctrine " (/cai touto v-nip tov ij/awi' Aoyou TreTroirjTai) : but the
freer translation given in the text better expresses the actual sense.
The original Latin reads: faeit et hoc ad causani nostrain.
'■• This entire account bears all the marks of untruthfulness, and
cannot for a moment be thought of as genuine. TertuUian was
probably, as Neander suggests, deceived by falsified or interpolated
documents from some Christian source. He cannot have secured
his knowledge from original .state records. The falsification took
place, probably, long after the time of Tiberius. TertuUian is the
first writer to mention these circumstances, and TertuUian was not
by any means a critical historian. Compare Ncander's remarks in
his Church History, Vol. I. p. 93 sqq. CTorrcy's Translation).
1'' Were this conduct of Tiberius a fact, Trajan's rescript and all
subsequent imperial action upon the subject would become inexpli-
cable.
II. 4.]
AGRIPPA APPOINTED KING OF THE JEWS.
107
CHAPTER III.
The Doctrine of Christ soon spread throui^hout
All the World.
1 Thus, under the influence of heavenly
power, and with the divine co-operation,
the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the
sun, quickly illumined the whole world ; ' and
straightway, in accordance with the divine Scrip-
tures," the voice of the inspired evangelists and
apostles went forth through all the earth, and
2 their words to the end of the world. In
every city and village, churches were quickly
established, filled with multitudes of people like
a replenished threshing-floor. And those whose
minds, in consequence of errors which had de-
scended to them from their forefathers, were fet-
tered by the ancient disease of idolatrous super-
stition, were, by the power of Christ operating
through the teaching and the wonderful works of
his disciples, set free, as it were, from terrible
masters, and found a release from the most cruel
bondage. They renounced with abhorrence every
species of demoniacal polytheism, and confessed
that there was only one God, the creator of all
things, and him they honored with the rites of true
piety, through the inspired and rational worship
which has been planted by our Saviour
3 among men. But the divine grace being
now poured out upon the rest of the nations,
Cornelius, of Caesarea in Palestine, with his
whole house, through a divine revelation and
the agency of Peter, first received faith in
Christ;'^ and after him a multitude of other
Greeks in Antioch,'* to whom those who were
scattered by the persecution of Stephen had
preached the Gospel. When the church of
Antioch was now increasing and abounding, and
a multitude of prophets from Jerusalem were on
the ground,^ among them Barnabas and Paul,
and in addition many other brethren, the name
of Christians first sprang up there," as from
1 Compare Col. i. 6. That Christianity had already spread over
the whole world at this time is, of course, an exaggeration; but the
statement is not a mere rhetorical flourish; it was believed as a his-
torical fact. This conception arose originally out of the idea that
the second coming of Christ was near, and the whole world must
know of him before his coming. The tradition that the apostles
preached in all parts of the world is to be traced back to the same
cause.
2 Ps. xix. 4. 3 See Acts x. i sq.
* See Acts xi. 20. The Textus Receptus of the New Testament
reads at this point 'EAAijuo-Ta?, a reading which is strongly supported
by external testimony and adopted by Westcott and Hort. But the
internal evidence seems to demand 'EAArji-as, and this reading is
found in some of the oldest versions and in a few MSB., and is
adopted by most modern critics, including Tischendorf. Eusebius
is a witness for the latter reading. He takes the word 'EAAjji-as in
a broad sense to indicate all that are not Jews, as is clear from his
insertion of the aWuiv, " other Greeks," after speaking of Cornelius,
who was not a Greek, but a Roman. Closs accordingly translates
Nichtjiiden, and Stigloher Heiden. 5 See Acts xi. 22 sqq.
8 See Acts xi. 26. This name was first given to the disciples by
the heathen of Antioch, not by the Jews, to whom the word " Christ "
meant too much ; nor by the disciples themselves, for the word sel-
dom appears in the New Testament, and nowhere in the mouth of a
disciple. The word xP'O'Tiai'os has a Latin termination, but this
does not prove that it was invented by Romans, for Latinisms were
a fresh and life-giving fountain.^ And 4
Agabus, one of the prophets who was with
them, uttered a prophecy concerning the famine
which was about to take place,** and Paul and
Barnabas were sent to relieve the necessities of
the brethren."
CHAPTER IV.
After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed
Ai:;rippa King if the Jeivs, having punished
Herod with Perpetual Exile.
Tiberius died, after having reigned about 1
twenty-two years,^ and Caius succeeded him
in the empire.^ He immediately gave the gov-
ernment of the Jews to Agrippa,^ making him
king over the tetrarchies of Philip and of Ly-
sanias ; in addition to which he bestowed upon
him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of Herod,*
having punished Herod (the one under whom
the Saviour suffered^) and his wife Herodias
with perpetual exile*' on account of numerous
crimes. Josephus is a witness to these facts.^
Under this emperor, Philo * became known ; 2
common in the Greek of that day. It was probably originally given
as a term of contempt, but accepted by the disciples as a term of the
highest honor.
~' dn-' eiiOaKov? Kal yoi'iixov TrTjy^?. Two MSS., followed by Ste-
phanus, Valesius, Closs, and Cruse, readyj)^; but all the other MSS.,
together with Rufinus, support the reading TTriyr]^, which is adopted
by the majority of editors.
8 See Acts xi. 28. Agabus is known to us only from this and
one other passage of the Acts (xxi. 10) , where he foretells the impris-
onment of Paul. The famine here referred to took place in the reign
of Claudius, where Eusebius puts it when he mentions it again in
chap. 8. He cannot therefore be accused, as many accuse him, of
putting the famine itself into the reign of Tiberius, and hence of
committing a chronological error. He is following the account of
the Acts, and mentions the prominent fact of the famine in that
connection, without thinking of chronological order. His method
is, to be sure, loose, as he does not inform his readers that he is
anticipating by a number of years, but leaves them to discover it for
themselves when they find the same subject taken up again after a
digression of four chapters. Upon the famine itself, see below,
chap. 8.
" See Acts xi. 29, 30.
* From Aug. 29, a.d. 14, to March 16, a.d. 37.
- Caius ruled from the death of Tiberius until Jan. 24, a.d. 41.
3 Herod Agrippa I. He was a son of Aristobulus, and a grand-
son of Herod the Great. He was educated in Rome and gained
high favor with Caius, and upon the latter's accession to the throne
received the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and in a.d. 39 the
tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea, which had belonged to Herod Anti-
pas. After the death of Caius, his successor, Claudius, appointed
him also king over the province of Judea and Samaria, which made
him ruler of all Palestine, a dominion as extensive as that of Herod
the Great. He was a strict observer of the Jewish law, and courted
the favor of the Jews with success. It was by him that James the
Elder was beheaded, and Peter imprisoned (Acts xii.). He died
of a terrible disease in a.d. 44. See below, chap. 10.
* Herod Antipas. ° See Luke xxiii. 7-11.
•" He was banished in a.d. 39 to Lugdunum in Gaul (according
to Josephus, AiU. XVIII. 7. 2; or to Spain, according to his Ji. "J.
II. g. 6), and died in Spain (according to B. J. II. 9. 6).
-> See Ant. XVIII. 6 and 7, and B. J. II. 9.
8 Philo was an Alexandrian Jew of high family, who was born
probably about 20-10 B.C. (in his Lcgat. ad Cajiiin, he calls him-
self an old man). Very little is known about his life, and the_ time
of his death is uncertain. The only fixed date which we have is the
embassy to Caligula (a.d. 40), and he lived for at least some time
after this. He is mentioned by Jerome {de vir. ill. 11), who says
he was bom of a priestly family; but Eusebius knows nothing of
this, and there is probably no truth in the statement. He is men-
tioned also by Josephus in his Ant. XVHI. 8. i. He was a Jewish
philosopher, thoroughly imbued with the Greek spirit, who strove
to unite Jewish beliefs with Greek culture, and exerted immense
influence upon the thought of subsequent ages, especially iipon
Christian theology. His works (Biblical, historical, philosophical,
io8
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBlUS.
[II. 4.
a man most celebrated not only among many
of our own, but also among many scholars with-
out the Church. He was a Hebrew by birth,
but was inferior to none of those who held high
dignities in Alexandria. How exceedingly he
labored in the Scriptures and in the studies of
his nation is plain to all from the work which he
has done. How familiar he was with philosophy
and with the liberal studies of foreign nations,
it is not necessary to say, since he is reported
to have surpassed all his contemporaries in the
study of Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy,
to which he particularly devoted his attention.^
CHAPTER V.
Phild's Embassy to Cuius in Behalf of the Jezvs.
1 Philo has given us an account, in five
books, of the misfortunes of the Jews under
Caius.^ He recounts at the same time the mad-
ness of Caius : how he called himself a god,
and performed as emperor innumerable acts of
tyranny ; and he describes further the miseries
of the Jews under him, and gives a report of the
embassy upon which he himself was sent to
Rome in behalf of his fellow-countrymen in
Alexandria;- how when he appeared before
practical, &c.) are very numerous, and probably the majority of
them are still extant. For particulars, see chap. i8, below. For an
excellent account of Philo, see Schiirer, Gcschichte dcs y'udisclicn
I'olkcs tin Zeitalter Jcsn Christi; zweite Auflage, Bd. II. p.
831 to 884 (Leipzig, 1S86), where the chief literature upon the sub-
ject is given.
'■> Philo was thoroughly acquainted with Greek literature in all its
departments, and shows great familiarity with it in his works. The
influence of Plato upon him was very great, not only upon his philo-
sophical system, but also upon his language; and all the Greek
philosophers were studied and honored by him. He may, indeed,
himself be called one of them. His system is eclectic, and contains
not only Platonic, but also Pythagorean, and even Stoic, elements.
Upon his doctrinal system, see especially Schiirer, ihid. p. 836 sq.
1 Upon this work, see Schiirer, p. 855 sqq. According to him,
the whole work embraced five books, and probably bore the title
TTtpl a^^TuiV Kat TTfiC(TPeia<; Trpb? Vdiov, Kusebius cites what seems
to be the same work under these two different titles in this and in the
next chapter; and the conclusion that they were but one work is
confirmed by the fact that Eusebius (in chap. iS) mentions the
work under the title On. the Virtues, which he says that Philo
humorously prefixed to his work, describing the impiety of Caius.
The omission of the title r; irpecrlieia in so complete a catalogue of
Philo's works makes its identification with nepl aperdv very proba-
ble. Of the five, only the third and fourth are extant, — eis "liAax-
Kov, Advcrsus J'^accu/ii, and wepX n-pecr^etas vrpb? Vaiov, de leg^a-
tione ad Cajutn (found in Mangey's ed. Vol. II. p. 517-600).
Book I., which is lost, contained, prob.ibly, a general introduction;
Book II., which is also lost, contained an account of the oppression
of the Jews during the time of Tiberius, by .Scjanus in Rome, and
by Pilate in Judea (see below, note 9) ; Book HI., Adversus Flac-
cum (still extant), contains an accoimt of the persecution of the
Jews of Alexandria at the beginning of the reign of Caius; Book IV.,
Lcgatio ad Cajnm (still extant), describes the sufferings which
came upon the Jews as a result of Caius' command that divine
honors should everywhere be paid him; Book V., the ■an.Xi.vMhia.
(which is lost), contained an account of the change for the better in
the Jews' condition through the death of Caius, and the edict of tol-
eration published by Claudius. Upon the other works of Philo, sec
chap. 18, below.
- The occasion of this embassy was a terrible disturbance which
had arisen between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, and had
continued with occasional interruptions for more than a year. Much
blood had been shed, and affairs were becoming constantly worse.
All efforts to secure peace utterly failed, and finally, in 40 a.d., the
Greeks dispatched an embassy to the emi>cr()r, hoi)ing to secure
from him an edict for the extermination of the jews. The Jews, on
Caius in behalf of the laws of his fathers he re-
ceived nothing but laughter and ridicule, and
almost incurred the risk of his life. Jose- 2
phus also makes mention of these things in
the
eighteenth
book of his Antiquities, in the
following words : ^ " A sedition having arisen in
Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there
and the Greeks,^ three deputies were chosen
from each faction and went to Caius. One 3
of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion,^
who uttered many slanders against the Jews ;
among other things saying that they neglected
the honors due to Cffisar. For while all other
subjects of Rome erected altars and temples to
Caius, and in all other respects treated him just
as they did the gods, they alone considered it
disgraceful to honor him with statues and
to swear by his name. And when Apion 4
had uttered many severe charges by which
he hoped that Caius would be aroused, as indeed
was likely, Philo, the chief of the Jewish em-
bassy, a man celebrated in every respect, a
brother of Alexander the Alabarch,^ and not
unskilled in philosophy, was prepared to enter
their side, followed the example of the Greeks, sending an embassy
for their own defense, with Philo at its head. The result was as
Eusebius relates, and the Jews were left in a v/orse condition than
before, from which, however, they were speedily relieved by the
death of Caius. Claudius, who succeeded Caius, restored to them
for a time religious freedom and all the rights which they had
hitherto enjoyed.
3 Josephus, Avt. XVIII. 8. i.
* This sedition, mentioned above, began in 38 A.D., soon after
the accession of Caius. The Jews, since the time of Alexander the
Great, when they had come in great numbers to the newly founded
city, Alexandria, had enjoyed with occasional interruptions high
favor there, and were among the most influential inhabitants. They
possessed all the rights of citizenship and stood upon an equality
with their neighbors in all respects. When Alexandria fell into the
hands of the Romans, all the inhabitants, Jews as well as Greeks,
were compelled to take a position subordinate to the conquerors, but
their condition was not worse than that of their neighbors. They
had always, however, been hated more or less by their fellow-citizens
on account of their prosperity, which was the result of superior edu-
cation and industry. This enmity came to a crisis under Caius, when
the financial condition of Egypt was very bad, and the inhabitants
felt themselves unusually burdened by the Roman demands. The
old hatred for their more prosperous neighbors broke out afresh, and
the terrible disturbance mentioned was the result. The refusal of
the Jews to worship Caius as a God was made a pretext for attacking
them, and it was this refusal which gained for them the hatred of
Caius himself.
'' Apion, chief of the Greek deputies, was a grammarian of Alex-
andria who had won great fame as a writer and Greek scholar. He
seems to have been very unscrupulous and profligate, and was a
bitter and persistent enemy of the Jews, whom he attacked very se-
verely in at least two of his works — the Egyptian History and a
special work Against the Jews, neither of which is extant. He
was very unscrupulous in his attacks, inventing the most absurd
and malicious falsehoods, which were quite generally believed, and
were the means of spreading still more widely the common hatred of
the Jews. Against him Josephus wrote his celebrated work, Contra
Apioncni (more fully de aiitiquitate Judaontin contra Apioncni),
which is still extant, and in the second book of which he exposes the
ignorance and mendacity of Apion. In the Pseudo-Clementines he
plays an important (but of course fictitious) role as an antagonist of
the Gospel. The extant fragments of Apion's works are given, ac-
cording to Lightfoot, in MiiUer's Fragni. Hist. Gnec. II. 506 sq.,
and in Fabricius' /Hbl. Cruc. I. 501, and VII. 50. Compare Light-
foot's article in Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christ. Biog.
1= The -Xlabarch was the chief magistrate of the Jews at Alexan-
dria. Alexander was a very rich and influential Jew, who was widely
known and held in high esteem. His son Tiberius Alexander was
appointed procurator of Judea in 46 A.n., as successor of Cuspius
Fadus. Philo thus belonged to a high and noble Jewish family.
The accuracy of Josephus' statement that Philo was the brother of
the Alabarch Alexander has been denied (e.g., by Ewald, Gesch. drs
Jiidischcn I'olhrs, Vol. VI. p. 23s), and the Alabarch has been as-
sumed to have been the nephew of Philo, but this without sufficient
ground (compare Schiirer, ibid. p. 832, note 5).
II. 6.]
MISFORTUNES OF THE JEWS UNDER CAIUS.
109
upon a defense in reply to his accusations.
5 But Caius prevented him and ordered him
to leave, and being very angry, it was plain
that he meditated some severe measure against
them. And Philo departed covered with insult,
and told the Jews that were with him to be of
good courage ; for while Caius was raging against
them he was in fact already contending
6 with God." Thus far Josephus. And Philo
himself, in the work On the Embassy''
which he wrote, describes accurately and in
detail the things which were done by him at
that time. But I shall omit the most of them,
and record only those things which will make
clearly evident to the reader that the misfor-
tunes of the Jews came upon them not long
after their daring deeds against Christ and
7 on account of the same. And in the first
place he relates that at Rome in the reign
of Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed
great influence with the emperor, made every
effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly ; ^ and
that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes
against the Saviour were committed, attempted
something contrary to the Jewish law in respect
to the temple, which was at that time still stand-
ing in Jerusalem, and excited them to the great-
cA tumults.'-'
CHAPTER VI.
The Misfoj-tunes which overwhelmed fhe Jeivs
after their Presumption against Christ.
1 After the death of Tiberius, Caius re-
ceived the empire, and, besides innumerable
other acts of tyranny against many people, he
greatly afflicted especially the whole nation of
the Jews.^ These things we may learn briefly from
' See note i, above. The work is cited here under the title ij
Trpeer/Set'a {Legatio).
^ The Jews in Rome had enjoyed the favor of Augustus, and had
increased greatly in numbers and influence there. They were first
disturbed by Tiberius, who was very hostile to them, and to whose
notice all the worst sides of Jewish character were brought by their
enemies, especially by Sejanus, who had great influence with the
emperor, and was moreover a deadly enemy of the Jews. The Jews
were driven out of Rome, and suffered many acts of violence. After
the death of Sejanus, which took place in 31 a.d., they were allowed
to return, and their former rights were restored.
" Pilate proved himself exceedingly tyrannical, and was very ob-
noxious to the Jews, ofiending them greatly at different times during
his administration by disregarding their religious scruples as no pro-
curator before him. had ventured to do. Soon after his accession he
changed his quarters from Ca:sarea to Jerusalem, and introduced the
Roman standard into the Holy City. The result was a great tumult,
and Pilate was forced to yield and withdraw the offensive ensigns
(Josephus, B. y. II. 9. 2; see the next chapter). At another time
he offended the Jews by hanging in his palace some shields inscribed
with the names of heathen deities, which he removed only upon an
express order of Tiberius (Philo, ad Caiictn, chap. 38). Again, he
appropriated a part of the treasure of the temple to the construction
of an aqueduct, which caused another terrible tumult which was
quelled only after much bloodshed (Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4; see
the next chapter). For further particulars about Pilate, see chap. 7,
below.
1 Caius' hostility to the Jews resulted chiefly (as mentioned
above, chap. 5, note 4) from their refusal to pay him divine honors,
which he demanded from them as well as from his other subjects.
His demands had caused terrible disturbances in Alexandria; and
in Jerusalem, where he commanded the temple to be devoted to his
worship, the tumult was very great and was quieted only by the
the words of Philo, who writes as follows : -
" So great was the caprice of Caius in his 2
conduct toward all, and especially toward
the nation of the Jews. The latter he so bit-
terly hated that he appropriated to himself their
places of worship in the other cities,'" and begin-
ning with Alexandria he filled them with images
and statues of himself (for in permitting others
to erect them he really erected them himself).
The temple in the holy city, which had hitherto
been left untouched, and had been regarded as
an inviolable asylum, he altered and transformed
into a temple of his own, that it might be called
the temple of the visible Jupiter, the younger
Caius." ^ Innumerable other terrible and 3
almost indescribable calamities which came
upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign
of the same emperor, are recorded by the same
author in a second work, to which he gave the
title, On the Virtues.^ With him agrees also
Josephus, who likewise indicates that the mis-
fortunes of the whole nation began with the
time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes
against the Saviour." Hear what he says in 4
the second book of his Jewish War, where
he writes as follows : ^ " Pilate being sent to
Judea as procurator by Tiberius, secretly carried
veiled images of the emperor, called ensigns,** to
Jerusalem by night. The following day this
caused the greatest disturbance among the Jews.
For those who were near were confounded at
the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, tram-
pled under foot. For they allow no image
to be set up in their city." Comparing 5
these things with the writings of the evan-
gelists, you will see that it was not long before
there came upon them the penalty for the excla-
mation which they had uttered under the same
Pilate, when they cried out that they had
no other king than Csesar.^ The same 6
writer further records that after this another
calamity overtook them. He writes as follows : ^"
"After this he stirred up another tumult by
making use of the holy treasure, which is called
Corban," in the construction of an aqueduct
yielding of the emperor, who was induced to give up his demands
by the request of Agrippa, who was then at Rome and in high favor
with him. Whether the Jews suffered in the same way in Rome
we do not know, but it is probable that the emperor endeavored to
carry out the same plan there as elsewhere.
2 Philo, Lcgat. ad Caium, 43.
3 Iv Tais oiAAai? iroAecri. The reason for the use of the word
"other" is not quite clear, though Philo perhaps means all the
cities except Jerusalem, which he mentions a little below.
* "' Caius the younger,' to distinguish him from Julius Ca;sar
who bore the name Caius, and who was also deified " (Valesius).
5 This work is probably the same as that mentioned in the begin-
ning of chap. 5. (See chap. 5, note i.) The work seems to have
borne two titles r; Trpecr^eia and rrepi aperilji'. See Schiirer, il>/d. p.
S59, who considers the Sevrepto here the addition of a copyist, who
could not reconcile the two different titles given by Eusebius.
^ This is rather an unwarranted assumption on the part of Euse-
bius, as Josephus is very far from intimating that the calamities of
the nation were a consequence of their crimes against our Saviour.
' Josephus, />. y. II. 9. 2. ^ John xix. 15.
8 (TTj/aaiai KaAoOi'Tai. 1" Josephus, B. y. II. g. 4.
" Heb. |3ir^; Greek Kop^ai- and Kopfiava.';. The word denoted
no
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. 6.
7 three hundred stadia in length.^- The mul-
titude were greatly displeased at it, and
when Pilate was in Jerusalem they surrounded
his tribunal and gave utterance to loud com-
plaints. But he, anticipating the tumult, had
distributed through the crowd armed soldiers
disguised in citizen's clothing, forbidding them
to use the sword, but commanding them to
strike with clubs those who should make an out-
cry. To them he now gave the preconcerted
signal from the tribunal. And the Jews being
beaten, many of them perished in consequence
of the blows, while many others were trampled
under foot by their own countrymen in their
flight, and thus lost their lives. But the multi-
tude, overawed by the fate of those who
8 were slain, held their peace." In addition
to these the same author records ^^ many
other tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem
itself, and shows that from that time seditions
and wars and mischievous plots followed each
other in quick succession, and never ceased in
the city and in all Judea until finally the siege
of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the
divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the
crimes which they dared to commit against
Christ.
CHAPTER VII.
Pilate's Suicide.
It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who
was governor in the time of our Saviour, is re-
ported to have fallen into such misfortunes under
Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was
forced to become his own murderer and execu-
tioner ; ^ and thus divine vengeance, as it seems,
was not long in overtaking him. This is stated
originally any offering to God, especially an offering in fulfillment
of a vow. The form xopfiava';, which Josephus has employed
here, was used to denote the sacred treasure or the treasury itself.
In ^Iatt. xxvii. 6, the only place where this form of the word occurs
in the New Testament, it is used with the latter meaning. Upon
this act of Pilate's, see above, chap. 5, note 9.
'^ Josephus, in Ani. XVIII. 3. 2, says that the aqueduct was
200 stadia long. In the passage which Eusebius quotes the number
given is 400, according to the Greek MSS. of Josephus, though the
old Latin translation agrees with Eusebius in reading 300. The
situation of the aqueduct we do not know, though the remains of an
ancient aqueduct have been found to the south of Jerusalem, and it
is thought that this may have been the same. It is possible that
I'ilate did not construct a new aqueduct, but simply restored one
that had been built in the time of Solomon. Schultz {yerjisalriii,
Berlin, 1845) suggests the number 40, supposing that the aqueduct
began at Bethlehem, which is 40 stadia from Jerusalem.
'5 See B. y. II. 10, 12 sqq.
' Pilate's downfall occurred in the following manner. A leader
of the Samaritans had promised to disclose the sacred treasures whic h
Moses was reported to have concealed upon Mt. Gerizim, and the
Samaritans came together in great numbers from all quarters. Pilate,
supposing the gathering to be with rebellious purpose, sent troops
against them and defeated them with great slaughter. The Samari-
tans complained to Vitellius, governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to
Rome (36 A.D.) to answer the charges brought against him. Upon
reaching Rome he found Tiberius dead and Caius upon the throne.
He was unsuccessful in his attempt to defend himself, and, accord-
ing to tradition, was banished to Vienne in Gaul, where a monu-
ment is still shown as Pilate's tomb. According to another tradition
he committed suicide upon the mountain near Lake Lucerne, whiih
bears bis name.
by those Greek historians who have recorded
the Olympiads, together with the respective
events which have taken place in each period.-
CHAPTER VITI.
The Famine wliich took Place in the Reign of
Claudius.
Caius had held the power not quite four 1
years,^ when he was succeeded by the em-
peror Claudius. Under him the world was vis-
ited with a famine,- which writers that are entire
strangers to our religion have recorded in their
histories.^ And thus the prediction of Agabus
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,* according
to which the whole world was to be visited
by a famine, received its fulfillment. And 2
Luke, in the Acts, after mentioning the
famine in the time of Claudius, and stating that
the brethren of Antioch, each according to his
ability, sent to the brethren of Judea by the
hands of Paul and Barnabas,® adds the following
account.
CHAPTER IX.
The Martyrdom of James the Apostle.
" ^ Now about that time " (it is clear that 1
he means the time of Claudius) " Herod
the King ^ stretched forth his hands to vex cer-
tain of the Church. And he killed James
the brother of John with the sword." And 2
concerning this James, Clement, in the sev-
enth book of his Hypotyposes,^ relates a story
- Eusebius, unfortunately, does not mention his authority in this
case, and the end of Pilate is recorded by no Greek historians known
to us. We are unable, therefore, to form a judgment as to the trust-
worthiness of the account.
^ Caius ruled from March i6, A.D. 37, to Jan. 24, A.D. 41, and
was succeeded by his uncle Claudius.
- Several famines occurred during the reign of Claudius (cf. Dion
Cassius, LX. 11, Tacitus, y^«««/. XII. 13, and Eusebius, Chron.,
year of Abr. 2070) in different parts of the empire, but no universal
famine is recorded such as Eusebius speaks of. According to Jose-
phus {Alii. XX. 2. 5 and 5. 2), a severe famine took place in Judea
while Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Ale.xander were successively pro-
curators. Fadus was sent into Judea upon the death of Agrippa
(44 A.D.), and Alexander was succeeded by Cumanus in 48 A.D.
The exact date of Alexander's accession we do not know, but it
took place probably about 45 or 46. This famine is without doubt
the one referred to by Ag.abus in Acts xi. 28. The exact meaning
of the word o'lKovfiifr], in that passage, is a matter of dispute.
Whether it refers simply to Palestine, or is used to indicate a succes-
sion of famines in different parts of the world, or is employed only in
a rhetorical sense, it is impossible to say. Eusebius understands the
word in its widest sense, and therefore assumes a universal famine;
but he is mistaken in his assumption.
3 The only non-Christian historians, so far as we know, to record
a famine during the reign of Claudius, arc iJion Cassius and Tacitus,
who mention a famine in Rome, and Josephus, who speaks of the
famine in Judea (sec the previous note for the references). Euse-
bius, in his Chron., mentions famines both in Greece and in Rome
during this reign, but upon what authority we do not know. As
already remarked, we have no extant account of a general famine at
this time.
♦ Acts xi. 28. " Acts xi. 29, 30. ' Acts xii. i, 2.
5 Herod Agrippa I.; see above, chap. 4, note 3.
3 On Clement's Hypotyf>oses, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3.
This fragment is preserved by Eusebius alone. The account
was iirobahly received by Clement from oral tradition. He IkkI 3
great store of such traditions of the apostles and their immediate ful-
II. 10.]
THE END OF HEROD AGRIPPA I.
1 1 1
which is worthy of mention ; telUng it as he re-
ceived it from those who had lived before him.
He says that the one who led James to the judg-
ment-seat, when he saw him bearing his testi-
mony, was moved, and confessed that he
3 was himself also a Christian. They were
both therefore, he says, led away together ;
and on the way he begged James to forgive him.
And he, after considering a little, said, '' Peace
be with thee," and kissed him. And thus they
were both beheaded at the same time.
4 And then, as the divine Scripture says,*
Herod, upon the death of James, seeing that
the deed i)leased the Jews, attacked Peter also
and committed him to prison, and would have
slain him if he had not, by the divine appearance
of an angel who came to him by night, been
wonderfully released from his bonds, and thus
liberated for the service of the Gospel. Such
was the providence of God in respect to Peter.
CHAPTER X.
Agrippa, 7vho 7c>as also called Herod, having per-
secuted tlie Apostles, immediately experienced
the Divine Vengeance.
1 The consequences of the king's under-
taking against the apostles were not long
deferred, but the avenging minister of divine
justice overtook him immediately after his plots
against them, as the Book of Acts records.'
For when he had journeyed to Caesarea, on a
notable feast-day, clothed in a splendid and royal
garment, he delivered an address to the people
from a lofty throne in front of the tribunal. And
when all the multitude applauded the speech, as
if it were the voice of a god and not of a man,
the Scripture relates that an angel of the Lord
smote him, and being eaten of worms he
2 gave up the ghost. ^ We must admire the
account of Josephus for its agreement with
the divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful
event ; for he clearly bears witness to the truth
in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities, where
he relates the wonder in the following
3 words : ^ " He had completed the third
year of his reign over all Judea* when he
came to Ca^sarea, which was formerly called
Strato's Tower.^ There he held games in honor
lowers, — in how far true or false it is impossible to say ; compare
the story which he tells of John, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. III. chap.
23, below. This story of James is not intrinsically improbable. It
may have been true, though external testimony for it is, of course,
weak. The Latin legends concerning James' later labors in Spain
and his burial in Compostella are entirely worthless. Epiphanius
reports that he was unmarried, and lived the life of a Nazarite; but
he gives no authority for his statement, and it is not improbable that
the report originated through a confusion of this James with James
the Just. * Acts xii. 3 sqq.
1 See Acts xii. 19 sqq. ^ Acts xii. 23.
3 Josephus, Ant. XIX. 8. 2.
* 44 A. D. Agrippa began to reign over the whole kingdom in 41
A.D. See above, chap. 4, note 3.
" Cajsarea lay upon tlie Mediterranean Sea, northwest of Jerusa-
of Cresar, learning that this was a festival ob-
served in behalf of Cresar's safety." At this
festival was collected a great multitude of the
highest and most honorable men in the prov-
ince. And on the second day of the games 4
he proceeded to the theater at break of
day, wearing a garment entirely of silver and of
wonderful texture. And there the silver, illu-
minated l)y the reflection of the sun's earliest
rays, shone marvelously, gleaming so brightly
as to produce a sort of fear and terror in
those who gazed upon him. And imme- 5
diately his flatterers, some from one place,
others from another, raised up their voices in a
way that was not for his good, calling him a god,
and saying, ' Be thou merciful ; if up to this
time we have feared thee as a man, henceforth
we confess that thou art superior to the
nature of mortals.' The king did not re- C
buke them, nor did he reject their impious
flattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw
an angel sitting above his head.' And this he
quickly perceived would be the cause of evil as
lem. In the time of Strabo there was simply a small town at this
point, called " Strato's Tower " ; but about lo B.C. Herod the Great
built the city of Cajsarea, which soon became the principal Roman
city of Palestine, and was noted for its magnificence. It became,
later, the seat of an important Christian school, and played quite a
part in Church history. Eusebius himself was Bishop of Caesarea.
It was a city of importance, even in the time of the crusades, but is
now a scene of utter desolation.
•J The occasion of this festival is uncertain. Some have consid-
ered it the festival in honor of the birth of Claudius; others, a festi-
val in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain. But neither of
these suggestions is likely. It is more probable that the festival
mentioned was the QuiHijiiennalia, instituted by Herod the Great
in honor of Augustus in 12 B.C. (see Josephus, A nt. XV. 8.1; B. J.
I. 21. 8), and celebrated regularly every five years. See Wieseler's
Chrotiologie dcs ap. Zeitaltcrs, p. 131 sqq., where this question is
carefully discussed in connection with the date of Agrippa's death,
which is fixed by Wieseler as Aug. 6, 44 A.D.
~' The passage in Josephus reads: " But as he presently after-
ward looked up he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head,
and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of evil
tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him."
This conveys an entirely different sense, the owl being omitted in
Eusebius. As a consequence most writers on Eusebius have made
the gravest charges against him, accusing him of a willful perversion
of the text of Josephus with the intention of producing a confirmation
of the narrative of the Acts, in which the angel of God is spoken of,
but in which no mention is made of an owl. The case certainly looks
serious, but so severe an accusation — an accusation which impeaches
the honesty of Eusebius in the most direct manner — should not
be made except upon unanswerable grounds. Eusebius elsewhere
shows himself to be a writer who, though not always critical, is at
least honest in the use he makes of his materials. In this case,
therefore, his general conduct ought to be taken into consideration,
and he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. Lightfoot, who
defends his honesty, gives an explanation which appears to me suf-
ficiently satisfactory. He says: "Doubtless also the omission of
the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa's death was already in
some texts of Josephus. The manner in which Eusebius deals with
his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his hon-
esty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge." And in
a note he adds: " It is not the snhstitutioji of an angel for an owl,
as the case is not uncommonly stated. The result is produced
mainly by the omission of some words in the text of Josephus, which
runs thus: araKiii/za? fi' ovv ^er' oXiyov [rot' /3ovj3ajra] t^9 eavToO
Kt(/)aA7y? ifir^p KaOe^o^ei'Ov eifiti' [eVt (T)(OLi'iov Tii'O'iJ dyyeXov [tcJ
70VT0V eiiOin; ei'orjo'e KaKwv eii'at, tov Kai nore Tior ayaBwv -yert-
/xcior. The words bracketed are omitted, and aiTior is added after
eirai, SO that the sentence nms, eXSci' ayye^ov tovtov evdi's eroTjot
(ciKojr tii'ai aiTioi' k.t.A. This being so, I do not feel at all sure
that the change (by whomsoever made) was dictated by any disin-
genuous motive. A scribe unacquainted with Latin would stumble
over Toi' BovpCii'a, which had a wholly different meaning and seems
never to have been used of an owl in Greek; and he woidd alter the
text in order to extract some sense out of it. In the previous men-
tion of tlie bird (Ant. XVIII. 6, 7) Josephus, or histranslator, gives
it as a Latin name: fiovfUora &i oi 'Ptofiaioi. ror oprir toOtoi' Ka-
AoOo-i, Mciller (quoted by Bright, p. XLV.) calls this ' the one case '
112
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. 10.
it had once been the cause of good fortune,^ and
he was smitten with a heart-piercing pain.
7 And straightway distress, beginning with the
greatest violence, seized his bowels. And
looking upon his friends he said, ' I, your god, am
now commanded to depart this hfe ; and fate thus
on the spot disproves the lying words you have
just uttered concerning me. He who has been
called immortal by you is now led away to die ;
but our destiny must be accepted as God has de-
termined it. For we have passed our life by
no means ingloriously, but in that splendor
8 which is pronounced happiness.' '•• And
when he had said this he labored with an
increase of pain. He was accordingly carried
in haste to the palace, while the report spread
among all that the king would undoubtedly soon
die. But the multitude, with their wives and
children, sitting on sackcloth after the custom
of their fathers, implored God in behalf of the
king, and every place was filled with lamentation
and tears.^" And the king as he lay in a lofty
in which, so far as he recollects, 'a sinceritatis via pa-ithihiin de-
Jlexit nosier'; and even here the indictment cannot be made good.
The severe strictures against Eusebius, made e.g. by Alford on Acts
xii. 21, are altogether unjustifiable" (Smith and Wace's Did. of
Christian Biog. II. p. 325). The Greek word pou^uji' means, ac-
cording to Liddell and Scott, (i) the groin, (2) a swelling in the
groin. The Latin word Bubo signifies " an owl," and the word is
here directly transferred by Josephus from the Latin into Greek
without any explanation. A scribe unacquainted with Latin might
easily stumble at the word, as Lightfoot suggests. In Ant. XVIII.
6, 7, where the bird is mentioned, the name is, to be sure, explained;
but the alteration at this point was made apparently by a copyist of
Eusebius, not of Josephus, and therefore by one who had probably
never seen that explanation.
Whiston in his translation of Josephus inserts a note to the fol-
lowing effect: " We have a mighty cry made here by some writers,
as if the great Eusebius had on purpose falsified this account of
Josephus, so as to make it agree with the parallel account in the
Acts of the Apostles, because the present copies of his citation of it.
Hist. Eccles. Bk. II. chap. 10, omit the words ^ov^mva. . . . enl
(T\oLVLov, Tivos, i.e. ' an owl ... on a certain rope,' which Jose-
phus' present copies retain, and only have the explanatory word
dyyeKov, or ' angel,' as if he meant that ' angel of the Lord '
which St. Luke mentions as smiting Herod, Acts xii. 23, and not
that owl, which Josephus called ' an angel or messenger, formerly of
good but now of bad news,' to Agrippa. This accusation is a
somewhat strange one in the case of the great Eusebius, who is
known to have so accurately and faithfully produced a vast number
of other ancient records and particularly not a few out of our Jose-
phus also, without any suspicion of prevarication. Now, not to
allege how uncertain we are, whether Josephus' and Eusebius'
copies of the fourth century were just like the present in this clause,
which we have no distinct evidence of, the following words preserved
still in Eusebius will not admit of any such exposition. ' This
[bird] (says Eusebius) Agrippa presently perceived to be the cause
of ill fortune, as it was once of good fortune'; which can belong
only to that bird the ' owl,' which, as it had formerly foreboded his
happy deliverance from imprisonmeat, Ant. XVIII. 6. 7, so was it
^yyeAoi', • angel,' or ' messenger,' and
the foregoing words, fiov^un/a (tt\ cr^^oiviou tu'oi;, be inserted, Euse-
bius' text will truly represent that in Josephus."
8 Josephus {.-int. XVIII. 6. 7) records that while Agrippa was
in chains — having been condemned to imprisonment by Tiberius —
an owl made its appearance and perched upon a tree near him. A
fellow-prisoner interpreted the event as a good omen, prophesying
that Agrippa would soon be released from his bonds and become
king, but that the same bird would appear to him again five d.iys
before his death. Tiberius died in the following ye.nr, and the events
prophesied came to pass. The story was apparently implicitly be-
lieved by Josephus, who relates it in good faith.
'■' The text of Josephus, as well as the majority of the MSS. of
Eusebius, followed by Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read
eTTi T^5 ju.axapi^o^iei'i)? Aa/xTrpiirijTo?, which I have adopted in prefer-
ence to the reading of Heinichen, who follows a few good MSS. in
substituting /xa/capioTrjTo^ for Aaf/Trporr^TO?.
'" This shows the success with which Agrippa had courted the
favor of the Jews. A far different feeling was shown at his death
from that exhibited al the death of his grandfather, Herod the Groat.
chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate
on the ground, could not refrain from weep-
ing himself. And after suffering continually 9
for five days with pain in the bowels, he
departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his
age, and in the seventh year of his reign." Four
years he ruled under the Emperor Caius — three
of them over the tetrarchy of Philip, to which
was added in the fourth year that of Herod ^-
— and three years during the reign of the
Emperor Claudius."
I marvel greatly that Josephus, in these 10
things as well as in others, so fully agrees
with the divine Scriptures. But if there should
seem to any one to be a disagreement in respect
to the name of the king, the time at least and
the events show that the same person is meant,
whether the change of name has been caused
by the error of a copyist, or is due to the fact
that he, like so many, bore two names.'^
CHAPTER XL
T/k: Impostoi- Theiidas and his Followers.
Luke, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel 1
as saying, at the consultation which was
held concerning the apostles, that at the time
referred to,^ " rose up Theudas boasting himself
to be somebody ; who was slain ; and all, as
many as obeyed him, were scattered."^ Let us
therefore add the account of Josephus concern-
ing this man. He records in the work mentioned
just above, the following circumstances : ^
"While Fadus was procurator of Judea* a 2
certain impostor called Theudas ^ persuaded
" He was born in lo B.C., and began to reign as successor of
Philip and Lysanias in 37 a.d. See above, chap. 4, note 3.
1- Herod Antipas.
13 Luke always calls the king, Herod, which was the family
name, while Josephus calls him by his given name Agrippa. He is
known to us under the name of Herod Agrippa I. It seems strange
that Eusebius should not have known that he bore the two names,
Herod Agrippa, instead of expressing doubt in the matter, as he does.
In the heading of the chapter he gives the king both names, without
intimating that he entertained any uncertainty in the matter.
1 KaTik rbv Sr]\ovij.(i'ov XP°^°^> ^•^- about the time of Agrippa's
death. But Luke writes irp'o yap toutwi' ruiv rjij.epCii', " Before these
days."
- Acts V. 36. ^ Josephus, A?ii. XX. 5. i.
* About 44 A.D. See above, chap. 8, note 2.
^ There is a chronological difficulty in connection with this
Theudas which has caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned
by Josephus arose in the time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred
to by Gamaliel in the Acts must have lived m.iny years before that.
Various solutions of greater or less plausibility have been offered,
almost any one of which is possible, and abundantly sufficient to
account for the alleged discrepancy, though none can be proved to
be true. Compare Wieseler's Chroti. des a/>. Zcitalters, p. 138,
note I ; Ewald's Gesch. des JYidischen I'olkcs, Bd. VI. p. 532; Jost's
Cesch. der Israeliten, Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and the various com-
mentaries on the Acts in loco.
A miestion of more importance for us, in the present instance, is
as to Eusebius' conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of
Luke with the Theudas of Josephus, — an identification which is im-
possible, if both accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius
has consequently been accused of an intentional perversion of facts
for the sake of promoting the credibility of Luke's accounts. But a
protest must again be entered against such grave imputations upon
the honesty of Eusebius. A man with a very small allowance of
common sense would certainly not have been so foolish as con-
sciously to involve himself in such a glaring anachronism — an anach.
n. 13.1
SIMON MAGUS.
113
a very great multitude to take their possessions
and follow him to the river Jordan. For he
said that he was a prophet, and that the river
should be divided at his command, and afford
them an easy passage. And with these
3 words he deceived many. But Fadus did
not permit them to enjoy their folly, but
sent a troop of horsemen against them, who fell
upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them
and took many others alive, while they took
Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head
and carried it to Jerusalem." Besides this he
also makes mention of the famine, which took
place in the reign of Claudius, in the following
words.
CHAPTER XII.
Helen, the Queen of the Osrhoinians.
1 ^"And at this time^ it came to pass that
the great famine ^ took place in Judea, in v/hich
the queen Helen,* having purchased grain from
Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the
needy."
2 You will find this statement also in agree-
ment with the Acts of the Apostles, where
it is said that the disciples at Antioch, " each
according to his ability, determined to send
relief to the brethren that dwelt in Judea ; which
also they did, and sent it to the elders by
3 the hands of Barnabas and Paul." ^ But
splendid monuments ^ of this Helen, of
whom the historian has made mention, are still
shown in the suburbs of the city which is now
called yElia.'^ But she is said to have been
queen of the Adiabeni.*
ronism which every reader had the means of exposing — for the
sake of making a point in confirmation of the narrative of Luke.
Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he would certainly have
endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it would not have re-
quired a great amount of ingenuity or research to discover in the
pages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible reconciliation.
The only reasonable explanation of Eusebius' anachronism is his
carelessness, which caused him to fall into many blunders as bad as
the present, especially in questions of chronology. He read, in the
Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar character of the
same name; he identified the two hastily, and without a thought of
any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the passage from
the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting that it occurs
several chapters before the account of the famine and of the other
events which happened in the time of Claudius.
^ Josephus, A lit. XX. 5. 2.
- In the times of these procurators, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius
Alexander
^ Josephus had already mentioned this famine in the same book
of his Attt., chap. 2, § 5.
^ Josephus gives an extensive account of this Helen and of her
son Izates in the Ant. XX. 2. Helen was the wife of the king
Monabazus of Adiabene, and the mother of Izates, his successor.
Both Izates and Helen embraced the Jewish religion, and the latter
happening to come to Jerusalem in the time of the famine, did a great
deal to relieve the distress, and was seconded in her benefactions by
her son. After their death the bones of both mother and son were
brought to Jerusalem and buried just outside of the walls, where
Helen had erected three pyramids (Jos. Ant. XX. 4. 3).
5 Acts xi. 29, 30. The passage in Acts has Saul instead of Paul.
But the change made by Eusebius is a very natural one.
^ " Pausanias (in Arcadia's) speaks of these great monuments
of Helen and compares them to the tomb of Mausolus. Jerome, too,
testifies that they were standing in his time. Helen had besides a
palace in Jerusalem" (Stroth).
' yElia was the heathen city built on the site of Jerusalem by
Hadrian (see below, Bk. IV. chap, 6},
VOL. I. 1
CHAPTER XIII.
Simon Magus}
But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus 1
Christ having now been diffused among all
men,- the enemy of man's salvation contrived a
plan for seizing the imperial city for himself.
He conducted thither the above-mentioned
Simon,^ aided him in his deceitful arts, led many
of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus
brought them into his own power. This is 2
stated by Justin,* one of our distinguished
writers who lived not long after the time of the
apostles. Concerning him I shall speak in the
proper place.^ Take and read the work of this
8 Adiabene was probably a small province lying between the
Tigris, Lycus, and the Gordiaean Mountains (see Dion Cassius,
LXyill.), but before the time of Pliny, according to Vaux (in
Smith's Diet, of Gnek and Roman Geography') , the word was
used in a wider sense to indicate Assyria in general (see Pliny, H. N .
VI. 12, and Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII. 6). Izates was king of
Adiabene in the narrower sense.
1 It is justly remarked by Reuterdahl that no chapters of Euse-
bius' History are so imperfect and unsatisfactory as those which re-
late to heresies, but that this is to be ascribed more to the age than to
the author. A right understanding of heresies and an appreciation
of any truth which they might contain was utterly impossible to
men who looked upon heresy as the work of the devil, and all here-
tics as his chosen tools. Eusebius has been condemned by some,
because he gives his information about heretics only from second
hand, and quotes none of them directly; but it must be remembered
that this method was by no means peculiar to Eusebius, and, more-
over, it is highly probable that he did not have access to any of their
works. The accounts of the heretics given by Irenaeus, Hippolytus,
and others would of course be preserved, but the writings of heretics
themselves would be piously excluded as completely as possible from
all Christian libraries, and the knowledge of them cannot have re-
mained long in the Church. The sources upon which we have to
rely at the present day for a knowledge of these heresies furnish an
illustration of this. We know them almost solely through their ene-
mies, and Eusebius knew them in the same way and very likely for
the same reason. ^ See chap. 3, note i.
' Simon Magus, of whom mention is first made in Acts viii. g sqq.
(quoted above, in chap, i), played a very prominent role in early
Church history. His life has been so greatly embellished with
legends that it is very difticult to extract a trustworthy account of
him. Indeed the Tiibingen school, as well as some other modern
critics, have denied altogether the existence of such a personage, and
have resolved the account of him into a Jewish Christian fiction pro-
duced in hostility to the apostle Paul, who under the mask of Simon
was attacked as the real heretic. But this identification of Paul and
Simon rests upon a very slender foundation, as many passages can
be adduced in which the two are expressly distinguished, and indeed
the thought of identifying Paul and Simon seems never to have
occurred to the writer of the Recognitions. The most that can be
said is that the author of the Homilies gives, and without doubt
purposely, some Pauline traits to his picture of Simon, but this does
not imply that he makes Simon no more than a mask for Paul (cf.
the words of Salmon in his article, Clementine Literature, in the
Diet, of Christ. Biog. Vol. I. p. 576). The original of Simon then
is not to be found in Paul. The third century fiction is based upon a
real historic person whose actual existence must be assumed to
account for the early notices of him in the Acts and in Justin Martyr,
as well as the common tradition of him among all parties in the
Church. Salmon considers Simon of Gitton — the basis of the ac-
count of Justin Martyr and of all the later Simon legends — a second
century Gnostic distinct from the Simon mentioned in the Acts (see
his excellent article Sitnon Magus, in the Did. of Christ. Biog. IV.
p. 68i sqq.). In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is represented as
traveling widely and spreading his errors in all directions, while
Peter follows him for the purpose of exposing his impostures, and
refutes him repeatedly in public disputations, until at length ne
conquers him completely in Rome, and Simon ends his life by suicide.
His death, as well as his life, is recorded in various conflicting and
fabulous traditions (see note 9, below). For ancient accounts of
Simon, see Justin Martyr, Af>ol. I. 26 and 56 and Dial. c. Trypho.
CXX.: the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions ; Ire
na;us,I. 23; Hippolytus, VI. 2 sq.; TertuWian's. Apology, On /dola-
try. On the Soul, etc.; Apost. Constitutions, \U. 7 sq.; Amobius,
Ad7'. Gentes, 11. 12, &c.; Acts of the Holv Apostles Peter and
Paul (Aiite-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 477 sqq.); tpi-
phanius, Hcrr. XXI.; and Theodoret, Hcer. Fab. I. i. See also
Lipsius, article in Schinkel's Bibel-Lexicon, Vol. V.
■* In his Apolos^y, I. 26, 56.
5 In Bk. IV. chaps. 8, 11, 16-18,
114
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[11. 13.
man, who in the first Apology " which he addressed
to Antonine in behalf of our rehgion writes
3 as follows : ^ " And after the ascension of
the Lord into heaven the demons put for-
ward certain men who said they were gods,
and who were not only allowed by you to go
unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of
honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan
of the village of Gitto,'* who in the reign of
Claudius Caesar ^ performed in your imperial
city some mighty acts of magic by the art of
demons operating in him, and was considered
a god, and as a god was honored by you with a
statue, which was erected in the river Tiber,'" be-
tween the two bridges, and bore this inscription in
the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo Sane to, that
4 is, 7^0 Simon the Holy God. '^ And nearly
all the Samaritans and a few even of other
nations confess and worship him as the first
God. And there went around with him at that
time a certain Helena '^ who had formerly been
a prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia ; and her they
call the first idea that proceeded from him."'^
" On Justin's Apology, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 18, note 3.
' Justin's Apology, I. 26.
* Gitton was a village of Samaria, near Flavia Neapolis (the mod-
ern Nablus), and is identified by Robinson with the present village
of Kuryet Jit (see Robinson's Biblical Researclies, HI. p. 144,
note). Some have doubted the accuracy of Justin's report, for the
reason that Josephus {Atit. XXII. 7.2) mentions a magician named
Simon, of about the same date, who was born in Cyprus. There
was a town called Ki'tioi" in Cyprus, and it has been thought that
Justin may have mistaken this place for the Samaritan Gitton. But
even if we assume the identity of the two Simons, as many critics do,
it is less likely that Justin, a native of Samaria, was mistaken upon
a question concerning his own country, than that Josephus was.
Simon's activity may have extended to Cyprus, in which case Jo-
sephus might easily have mistaken his birthplace.
" Justin here assigns Simon's visit to Rome to the reign of
Claudius (41-54 A.D.), as Irensus also does. Other accounts as-
sign it to the reign of Nero, but all differ as to the details of his
death; suicide, death from injuries received while trying to fly, vol-
untary burial in expectation of rising again on the third day, &c.,
are reported in different traditions. All, however, agree that he
visited Rome at some time or another.
'" That is, on the island which lies in the middle of the Tiber, a
short distance below the Vatican, and which now bears the name
Isola Tiberiana, or di S. Schastiano.
'1 In 1574 a statue, bearing the inscription Semoni Sanco dec
fidio, &c., was found in the place described by Justin Martyr, but
this statue was erected to the .Sabine divinity Semo Sancus. It is
therefore highly probable that Justin mistook this statue for a statue
of Simon Magus. This is now the commonly accepted view, though
the translator of Justin Martyr in the Atite-Nicene Fathers ven-
tures to dispute it (see the Am.ed. Vol. I. p. 171, note). The report
is given a second time by Justin in his Apol. 56, and also by Ire-
nsus, I. 23. I (who, however, simply says " It is said," and may
have drawn his knowledge only from Justm Martyr) and by Tertul-
lian, Apol. chap. 13. The last named is in general a poor authority,
even if he be independent of Justin at this point, which is not prob-
able. Hippolytus, who lived at Rome, and who gives us an account
of the death of Simon (Bk. VII. chap. 15), says nothing about the
statue, and his silence is a strong argument against it.
'^ A similar story is told of this Helen by Irenaeus, I. 23 ; by
Hippolytus, VI. 15 ("who adds some important particulars) ; by
TertuUian, De Anima, 34; by Epiphanius, //rf-r. 21; .ind by Theo-
dore!, Hu-r. Fab. I. I ; compare also Origen, Contra Cclstitii, V. 62.
Simon taught that this Helen was the first conception of his mind,
the mother of all things, the impersonation of the divine intelligence,
&c. The Simonians, according to Irenajus (I. 23. 4), and Hippolytus
(VI. 15; see chap. 14, note 8), had images of Simon and Helen whom
they honored as Jupiter and Minerva. Simon's doctrines and prac-
tice, as recorded by these Fathers, show some of the general concep-
tions common to all the Gnostic systems, but exhibit a crude and
undeveloped form of Gnosticism. Upon Helen, see Salmon, in
the Diet, of Christ. Biog. II. p. 880 sq., and all the works upon
Simon Magus.
" This conception of the idea {ivvo\.oi) is thoroughly Gnostic,
and plays an important part in all the Gnostic systems. Most of
these systems had a dualistic element recognizing the Siiram? and
the t'lToia as the original principles from whose union all beings
Justin relates these things, and Irenseus also 5
agrees with him in the first book of his work.
Against Heresies, where he gives an account of
the man '* and of his profane and impure teach-
ing. It would be superfluous to quote his account
here, for it is possible for those who wish to
know the origin and the lives and the false doc-
trines of each of the heresiarchs that have followed
him, as well as the customs practiced by them
all, to find them treated at length in the
above-mentioned work of Irenceus. ^Ve 6
have understood that Simon was the author
of all heresy.'^ From his time down to the
present those who have followed his heresy have
feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians,
which is celebrated among all on account of its
purity of life. But they nevertheless have em-
braced again the superstitions of idols, which
they seemed to have renounced ; and they fall
down before pictures and images of Simon him-
self and of the above-mentioned Helena who
was with him ; and they venture to worship
them with incense and sacrifices and liba-
tions. But those matters which they keep 7
more secret than these, in regard to which
they say that one upon first hearing them would
be astonished, and, to use one of the written
phrases in vogue among them, would be con-
founded,^'^ are in truth full of amazing things,
and of madness and folly, being of such a sort
that it is impossible not only to commit them to
writing, but also for modest men even to utter
them with the lips on account of their ex-
cessive baseness and lewdness.'*^ For what- 8
ever could be conceived of, viler than the
vilest thing — all that has been outdone by this
most abominable sect, which is composed of
those who make a sport of those miserable
females that are literally overwhelmed with all
kinds of vices.^^
emanated. These general conceptions appeared in all varieties of
forms in the different systems. '■* Irenasus adv. Hcer. I. 23.
i*"' See note 3, above. i" 6ajn^a)9))<re<TCai.
'^ This was the general opinion of the early Fathers, all of whom
picture Gnosticism as a wilderness of absurdities and nonsense; and
Irenaius, Hippolytus, and others undertake its refutation only for the
purpose of exposing these absurdities. It is treated by none of tlicm
as an intelligent speculation with a foundation in reason or sense.
This thorough misunderstanding of the nature and aim of Gnosticism
has been perpetuated in our day by many writers upon the subject.
Neander was the first to attempt a thoroughly philosophical treat-
ment of it (in his Gtmetische Entmickeliiii^ d.gtiost. Systovn-, Ber-
lin, 1818), and since that time the subject has been treated intelli-
gently and discriminatingly by many writers, e.g. Baur, Lipsius,
Lightfoot, Salmon, and especially Harnack, who has grasped the
true principle of Gnosticism perhaps more fully than any one else.
See his Dogiiinigeschichte, I. p. 158 sqq.
i'* This was true of the Sinionians, who were very immoral and
licentious, and of some other Gnostic sects, as e.g. the Ophites, the
Carpocratians, &c. But many of the Gnostics, e.g. Marcion (but
see below, IV. n, note 24), Saturninus.Tatian, &c., went to the oppo-
site extreme, teaching a rigid and gloomy asceticism. Underlying
both of these extremes we perceive the same principle — a dualism
of matter and spirit, therefore of body and mind — the former con-
sidered as the work of the devil, and therefore to be dcsjiised and
abused; the latter as divine, and therefore to he honored above all
else. The .abhorrence of the body, and of matter and n.iture in gen-
eral, logically led to one of the two opposite results, asceticism or
antinomianism, according to the character and instincts of the per-
son himself. See Schaff, Chiinh Hist. II. p. 4S7 sc|q. 'J'lie I'athers,
in their hatred of all forms of hereby, naturally s.iw no good in any
II. 15-]
THE PREACHING OF PETER IN ROME.
115
CHAPTER XIV.
The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.
1 The evil power,^ who hates all that is
good and plots against the salvation of men,
constituted Simon at that time the father and
author of such wickedness/ as if to make him a
mighty antagonist of the great, inspired
2 apostles of our Saviour. For that divine
and celestial grace which co-operates with
its ministers, by their appearance and presence,
quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil,
and humbled and cast down through them " every
high thing that exalted itself against the
3 knowledge of God."^ Wherefore neither
the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of
the others who arose at that period could ac-
complish anything in those apostolic times. For
everything was conquered and subdued by the
splendors of the truth and by the divine word
itself which had but lately begun to shine from
heaven upon men, and which was then flourish-
ing upon earth, and dwelling in the apos-
4 ties themselves. Immediately* the above-
mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes
of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash,
and after the evil deeds done by him had been
first detected by the apostle Peter in Judea,^
he fled and made a great journey across the sea
from the East to the West, thinking that only
thus could he live according to his mind.
5 And coming to the city of Rome,^ by the
mighty co-operation of that power which
was lying in wait there, he was in a short time
so successful in his undertaking that those who
dwelt there honored him as a god by the
6 erection of a statue.^ But this did not last
long. For immediately, during the reign
of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Provi-
dence, which watches over all things, led Peter,
that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and
the one who on account of his virtue was the
of them, and heretics were therefore indiscriminately accused of im-
moraUty and licentiousness in their worst forms.
1 See the previous chapter, note i.
2 See chap, i, note 25. 2 2 Cor. x. 5.
* The significance of the word " immediately " as employed here
is somewhat dark. There is no event described in the preceding
c >nte\t with which it can be connected. I am tempted to think that
Eiisebius may have been using at this point some unknown source,
and that the word "immediately" refers to an encounter which
Simon had had with Peter (perhaps his Caesarean discussion, men-
tioned in the Clementines), of which an account was given in the
document employed by Eusebius. The figure employed here is
most remarkable.
6 Acts viii. 9 sqq. This occurred in Samaria, not in Judea
proper, but Eusebius evidently uses the word "Judea "in a wide sense,
to indicate the Roman province of Judea, which included also Sama-
ria. It is not impossible, especially if Eusebius is quoting here from
a written source, that some other encounter of Simon and Peter is
referred to. Such a one e.g. as is mentioned in the Apostolic Con-
stitutions, VI. 8.
'' Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics.
They were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagan-
dism which the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his
transcendental conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial
seat of the devil.
• See above, chap. 13, note 11.
speaker for all the others, to Rome ^ against this
great corrupter of life. He like a noble com-
mander of God, clad in divine armor, carried
the costly merchandise of the Hght of the under-
standing from the East to those who dwelt in
the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the
word which brings salvation to souls, and preach-
ing the kingdom of heaven.^
CHAPTER XV.
The Gospel according to Mark.
And thus when the divine word had 1
made its home among them,^ the power of
8 Upon the historic truth of Peter's visit to Rome, see below,
chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did
visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that
he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero. The tradition
that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded by
Jerome {de 7>ir. ill. c. i), and since his time has been almost uni-
versally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent
years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge
that so long an episcopate there is a fiction. The tradition undoubt-
edly took its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the
previous chapter) that Simon Magiis came to Rome during the reign
of Claudius. Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly con-
nected the Roman visits of Simon and of Peter; and consequently
Eusebius, accepting the earlier date for Simon's arrival in Rome,
quite naturally assumed also the same date for Peter's arrival there,
although Justin does not mention Peter in connection with Simon in
the passage which Eusebius quotes. The assumption that Peter
took up his residence in Rome during the reign of Claudius contra-
dicts all that we know of Peter's later life from the New Testament
and from other early writers. In 44 a.d. he was in Jerusalem (ac-
cording to Acts xii. 3) ; in 51 he was again there (according to Acts
XV.); and a little later in Antioch (according to Gal. i. n sq.).
Moreover, at some time during his life he labored in various prov-
inces in Asia Minor, as we learn from his first epistle, and probably
wrote that epistle from Babylon on the Euphrates (see chap. 15, note
7). At any rate, he cannot have been in Rome when Paul wrote his
epistle to the Romans (57 or 58 a.d.), for no mention is made of
him among the brethren to whom greetiugs are sent. Nor can he
have been there when Paul wrote from Rome during his captivity
(5i or 62 to 63 or 64 a.d.). We have, in fact, no trace of him in
Rome, except the extra-Biblical but well-founded tradition (see chap.
25, note 7) that he met his death there. We may assume, then, that
he did not reach Rome at any rate until shortly before his death;
that is, shortly before the summer of 64 A.D. As most of the ac-
counts put Simon Magus' visit to Rome in the reign of Nero (see
above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make him follow Peter thither
(as he had followed him everywhere, opposing and attacking him),
instead of precede him, as Eusebius does. Eusebius follows Justin
in giving the earlier date for Simon's visit to Rome; but he goes
beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with Peter, which
neither Justin nor Irena;us mentions. The earlier date for Simon's
visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest tradition. Afterward,
when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected with the reign
of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize with the
presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of Simon's meeting
with Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus (VI. 15) ; afterward
by Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the meeting; by the
Ap. Const., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and the
Acts oftlie Apostles Peter and Paul. It is impossible to tell from
what source Eusebius drew his information. Neither Justin, Ire-
naeus, nor Tertullian mentions it. Hippolytus and Arnobius and
the App. Const, give too much, as they give accounts of his death,
which Eusebius does not follow. As to this, it might, however, be
said that these accounts are so conflicting that Eusebius may have
omitted them entirely, while yet recording the meeting. Still, if he
had read Hippolytus, he could hardly have omitted entirely his in-
teresting account. Arnobius and Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, he
did not read, and the Clementines were probably too late for him;
at any rate, they cannot have been the source of his account, which
diflers entirely from theirs. It is highly probable, therefore, that he
followed Justin and Irenajus as far as they go, and that he recorded
the meeting with Peter in Rome as a fact commonly accepted in his
time, and one for which he needed no written authority; or it is
possible that he had another source, unknown to us, as suggested
above (note 4).
'■> A most amazing mixture of metaphors. This sentence furnishes
an excellent illustration of Eusebius' rhetorical style.
' The origin of the Church at Rome is shrouded in mystery.
Eusebius gives the tradition which rules in the Catholic Church,
viz.: that Christianity was introduced into Rome by Peter, who
I 2
ii6
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. 15.
Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed,
together with the man himself.- And so greatly
did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of
Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with
hearing once only, and were not content with
the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but
with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,''
a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel
is extant, that he would leave them a written
monument of the doctrine which had been
orally communicated to them. Nor did they
cease until they had prevailed with the man,
and had thus become the occasion of the writ-
ten Gospel which bears the name of Mark."*
went there during the reign of Claudius. But this tradition is suf-
ficiently disproved by history. The origin of the Church was due to
unknown persons, though it is possible we may obtain a hint of them
in the Andronicus and Junia of Romans xvi. 7, who are mentioned
as apostles, and who were therefore, according to the usage of the
word in Paul's writings, persons that introduced Christianity into
a new place — missionaries proper, who did not work on others'
ground.
2 See chap. 12, note 9, and chap. 14, note 8.
' John Mark, son of Mary (Acts xii. 12), a sister of Barnabas
(Col. iv. 10), was a companion of Paul and Barnabas in their mis-
sionary journeys, and afterward a companion of Barnabas alone
(Acts .XV. 39), and still later was with Paul again in Rome (Col. iv.
10 and Philemon 24), and with Peter when he wrote his first epistle
(i Pet. V. 13). For the later traditions concerning Mark, see the
next chapter, note i.
* That Mark wrote the second Gospel under the influence of
Peter, or as a record of what he had heard from him, is the uni-
versal tradition of antiquity. Papias, in the famous and much-
disputed passage (quoted by Eusebius, III. 39, below), is the first
to record the tradition. Justin Martyr refers to Mark's Gospel under
the name " Memoirs (durojii'rjfxoi'eiinoTa) of Peter" {D:\zl. c. Trypli.
106; the translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol.
I. p. 252, which refers the aiiToO to Christ, is incorrect; compare
Weiss, N. T. Eiiileitiing,-^. 44, note 4). Irena;us (/J(/r'. Hwr.
III. II. I, cjuoted below, V. 8. 2), Tertullian (Aiizi. Ularcionem, IV.
5), and Ongen (quoted below, VI. 25) confirm the tradition, which
is repeated over and over again by the Fathers.
The question as to the real authorship of our second Gospel, or
rather as to its composition and its relation to Matthew and Luke, is
a very difficult one. The relationship of the three synoptical Gospels
was first discussed by Augustine (l)e Consensu Evang'eh'stariini) ,
who defended the traditional order, but made Mark dependent upon
Matthew. This view prevailed until the beginning of the present
century, when the problem was attacked anew, and since then it has
been the crux of the literary criticism of the Bible. The three have
been held to be dependent upon each other, and every possible order
has found its advocates; a common source has buen assumed for the
three: the Hebrew Matthew, the Gospel according to the Hehre-MS
(see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 24), our canonical Gospel of Mark, or an
original Mark, resembling the present one; a number of fragmentary
documents have been assumed; while others, finally, have admitted
only oral tradition as the basis. According to Baur's tendency
theory, Matthew (polemically Jewish-Christian) came first, followed
by an original Luke (polemically Pauline-Christian), then by our
Mark, which was based upon both and written in the interest of neu-
trality, and lastly by our present Luke, designed as a final irenicum.
This view now finds few advocates. "The whole matter is still un-
settled, but criticism seems to be gradually converging toward a
common ground type (or rather two independent types) for all three,
while at the same time maintaining the relative independence of the
three, one toward the other. What these ground types were, is a
matter of still sharper dispute, although criticism is gradually draw-
ing their larger features with more and more certainty and clearness.
("The latest discussion upon the subject by Handmann, das Hebraer-
Kvangiliunt, makes the two types the ''Ur-Marcus" and the Gos-
pel of the Jlc/'r-rws.) That in the last analysis, however, some
space must still be left for floating tradition, or for documents irre-
ducible to the one or two types, seems absolutely certain. For
further information as to the state of discussion upon this intricate
problem, see among recent works, especially Weiss, Einleitu>ig, p.
473 sqq., Holtzmann, Einleitiing, p. 328 sqq., and Schaff, Ch. Hist,
I. 575 sqq., where the literature down to 1882 is given with great
fullness. Con.servative opinion puts the composition of all the syn-
optic Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem (for the date of
Luke, see III. 4, note 12) ; but the critical school, while throwing the
original type back of that date, considers the composition of our
present Gospels to have been the gradual work of years, assuming
And they say that Peter, when he had 2
learned, through a revelation of the Spirit,
of that which had been done, was pleased with
the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained
the sanction of his authority for the purpose of
being used in the churches/ Clement in the
eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this ac-
count, and with him agrees the bishop of Hiera-
polis named Papias." And Peter makes men-
tion of Mark in his first epistle which they say
that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by
him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon,
as he does in the following words : " The church
that is at Babylon, elected together with you,
saluteth you ; and so doth Marcus my son." ''
CHAPTER XVI.
Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the In-
habitants of Egypt.
And they say that this Mark was the first 1
that was sent to Egypt, and that he pro-
claimed the Gospel which he had written, and
first established churches in Alexandria.'
And the multitude of believers, both men 2
and women, that were collected there at
the very outset, and hved lives of the most philo-
sophical and excessive asceticism, was so great,
that Philo thought it worth while to describe
their pursuits, their meetings, their entertain-
ments, and their whole manner of life." ^
that they were not finally crystallized into the form in which we
have them before the second centuiy.
'' This meniion of the " pleasure " of Peter, and the " authority "
given by him to the work of Mark, cnntrndicls the account of Clem-
ent to which Eusebius here appeals as his authority. In Bk. VI.
chap. 14 he quotes from the Hypotyposes of Clement, a passage
which must be identical with the one referred to in this place, for
it is from the same work and the general account is the same; but
there Clement s.ays expressly, "which when Peter understood he
neither directly hindered nor encoiirai-ed it."
'' The passage from Papias is quoted below in Bk. III. chap. 39.
Papias is a witness to the general fact that Mark wrote down what
he had heard from Peter, but not (so far as he is extant) to the
details of the account as given by Eusebius. Upon Papias himself,
see Bk. III. chap. 39.
' I Pet. v. 13. Commentators are divided as to the place in
which Peter wrote this epistle (compare .Schaff's Church Hist. I.
p. 744 sqq.). The interpretation given by I'usebius is the patristic
and Roman Catholic opinion, and is maintained by many Protestant
commentators. But on the other hanil the literal use of the word
" Babylon" is defended by a great number of the leading scholars of
the present day. Compare Weiss, N. T. Kinleitung; p. 433, note i.
> That Mark labored in Egypt is stated also by Epiphanius
{liar. LI. 6), by Jerome (</<• vir. ill. 8), by Nicephorus {H. E.
II. 43), and by the Acta Barnabir, p. 26 (Tischendorfs Acta
Apost. A poor. p. 74), which were written probably in the third
century. Eusebius gained his knowledge apparently from or.d
tradition, for he uses the formula, "they say" (c/iaair). In
chap. 24, below, he says that Anniamis succeeded Mark as a leader
of the Alexandrian Church in the eighth year of Nero (62 A.D.),
thus implying that Mark died in that year; .and Jerome gives the
same date for his death. But if the tradition that he wrote his Gos-
pel in Rome under Peter (or after Peter's death, as the best tradition
puts it, so e.g. Irena;us) be correct, then this date is hopelessly
wrong. The varying traditions are at best very uncertain, and the
whole career of Mark, so far as it is not recorded in the New Testa-
ment, is involved in obscurity.
2 See the next chapter.
i
II. .7.]
PHILOS ACCOUNT OF Till-: TIIP:RAPEUTyE.
117
CHAPTER XVII.
Philo's Account of the Ascetics of Egypt.
1 It is also said that Philo in the reign of
Claudius became acquainted at Rome with
Peter, who was then preaching there. ^ Nor is
this indeed improbable, for the work of which
we have spoken, and which was composed by
him some years later, clearly contains those
rules of the Church which are even to this
2 day observed among us. And since he de-
scribes as accurately as possible the life of
our ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew,
but that he also approved, while he venerated
and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who
were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence
observed, after the manner of the Jews, the
3 most of the customs of the ancients. In
the work to which he gave the title, On a
Contemplative Life <?r on Suppliants^ after af-
1 This tradition that Philo met Peter in Rome and formed an
acquaintance with him is repeated by Jerome {de vir ill. 11), and
by Photius (Cod. 105), who even goes further, and says directly that
Philo became a Christian. The tradition, however, must be regarded
as quite worthless. It is absolutely certain from Philo's own works,
and from the otherwise numerous traditions of antiquity that he
never was a Christian, and aside from the report of Eusebius (for
Jerome and Photius do not represent an independent tradition) there
exists no hint of such a meeting between Peter and Philo; and when
we realize that Philo was already an old man in the time of Caius
(see above, chap. 4, note 8), and that Peter certainly did not reach
Rome before the later years of Nero's reign, we may say that such
a meeting as Eusebius records (only upon tradition, Adyos «x^') '^
certainly not historical. Where Eusebius got the tradition we do
not know. It may have been manufactured in the interest of the
Philonic authorship of the De vita contemplativa, or it may have
been a natural outgrowth of the ascription of that work to him,
some such explanation suggesting itself to the reader of that work
as necessary to explain Philo's supposed praise of Christian monks.
Philo's visit to Rome during the reign of Caligula being a well-
known historic fact, and Peter's visit to Rome during the reign of
Claudius being assumed as likewise historic (see above, chap. 14,
note 8), it was not difficult to suppose a meeting between them
(the great Christian apostle and the great Jewish philosopher), and
to invent for the purpose a second visit of Philo to Rome. It seems
probable that the ascription of the work De vita conte>n/>lativa to
Philo came before the tradition of his acquaintance with Peter in
Rome (which is first mentioned by Eusebius) ; but in any case the
two were mutually corroborative.
2 TTipi piov BeuipriTiKov rj iKerwi'; De Vita Coiiieiiiplaiiva. This
work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, II. 471-486. Eusebius is
the first writer to mention it, and he identifies the Therapeutse de-
scribed in it with the Christian monks, and assumes in consequence
that monasticism in the form in which he knew it existed in the apos-
tolic age, and was known and praised by Philo. This opinion was
generally adopted by the Fathers (with the single exception of
Photius, Cod. 105, who looked upon the Therapeutse as a Jewish sect)
and prevailed unquestioned until the Reformation, when in the Protes-
tant reaction against monasticism it was denied that monks existed
in the apostolic age, and that the Therapeutse were Christians at all.
Various opinions as to their identity have been held since that time,
the commonest being that they were a Jewish sect or school, parallel
with the Palestinian Essenes, or that they were an outgrowth of
Alexandrian Neo-Pythagoreanism. The former opinion may be
said to have been the prevailing one among Christian scholars until
Lucius, in his work entitled Die Therapeuteii iiiid Hire Stclhcng
in der Gcsch. dcr Askese (Strassburg, 1879) , proved (what had been
asserted already by Gratz and Jost) that the Therapeutae are really
to be identified with Christian monks, and that the work De Vita
Contemplativa is not a genuine work of Philo's. If the former
proposition is proved, the latter follows of necessity, for it is abso-
lutely impossible to suppose that monasticism can have existed in so
developed a form (or indeed in any form) in the time of Philo. On
the other hand it may be proved that the work is not Philonic, and
yet it may not follow that the Therapeutse are to be identified with
Christian monks. And so some scholars reject the Philonic author-
ship while still maintaining the Jewish character of the Therapeutae
(e.g. Nicolas, Kuenen, and Weingarten; see Schiirer, Gesch. der
yude>t iin Zeitalter yesie Christi, p. 863). In the opinion of the
writer, who agrees therein with the great majority of scholars, Lu-
cius has conclusively demonstrated both his propositions, and has
shown that the work De Vita Contemplativa is the production of
firming in the first place that he will add to
those things which he is about to relate nothing
contrary to truth or of his own invention,^ he says
that these men were called Therapeutse and the
women that were with them Therapeutrides.'*
He then adds the reasons for such a name, ex-
plaining it from the fact that they api)lied reme-
dies and healed the souls of those who came to
them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil
passions, or from the fact that they served and
worshiped the Deity in purity and sincer-
ity. Whether Philo himself gave them this 4
name, employing an epithet well suited to
their mode of life, or whether the first of them
really called themselves so in the beginning,
since the name of Christians was not yet every-
where known, we need not discuss here.
He bears witness, however, that first of all 5
they renounce their pro])erty. When they
begin the philosophical ^ mode of life, he says,
they give up their goods to their relatives, and
then, renouncing all the cares of life, they go
forth beyond the walls and dwell in lonely fields
and gardens, knowing well that intercourse with
people of a different character is unprofitable
and harmful. They did this at that time, as
seems probable, under the influence of a spirited
and ardent faith, practicing in emulation the
prophets' mode of Hfe. For in the Acts of 6
the Apostles, a work universally acknowl-
edged as authentic,® it is recorded that all the
some Christian of the latter part of the third century, who aimed to
produce an apology for and a panegyric of monasticism as it existed
in his day, and thus to secure for it wider recognition and accept-
ance. Lucius concludes with the following words: " Wir haben es
demnach in D.V.C. mit einer Tendenzschrift zu thun, welche, da sie
eine weit ausgebildete und in zahlreichen LJindern verbreitete As-
kese, so wie Zustande voraussetzt, genau wie dieselben nur im Chris-
tenthum des dritten Jahrhunderts vorhanden waren, kaum anders
aufgefasst werden kann, als eine, etwa am Ende des dritten Jahr-
hunderts, unter dem Namen Philo's, zu Gunsten der Christlichen
Askese, verfasste Apologie, als erstes Glied eines an derartigen
Producte Uberaus reichen Litteratur-zweige der alten Kirche."
Compare with Lucius' work the reviews of it by Hilgenfeld in the
Zeitschri/t fiir iviss. TheoL, i8So, pp. 423-440, and by Schiirer
in the TheologiscJte Literaturzeitung, 1880, No. 5. The latter
especially has added some important considerations with reference
to the reasons for the composition of this work under the name of
Philo. Assuming then the correctness of Lucius' conclusions, we
see that Eusebius was quite right in identifying the Therapeuta; with
the Christian monks as he knew them in his day, but that he was
quite wrong in accepting the Philonic authorship of the work in
question, and in concluding that the institution of monasticism ag
he knew it existed already in the apostolic age (compare note 19,
below).
3 It may fairly be doubted whether the work does not really con-
tain considerable that is not in strict accordance with the facts ob-
served by the author, whether his account is not to an extent ideal-
ized, and whether, in his endeavor to emphasize the Jewish character
of the Therapeuta;, with the design of establishing the antiquity of
monasticism (compare the review of Schiirer referred to above), he
has not allowed himself to introduce some imaginative elements.
The strong asseveration which he makes of the truthfulness of his
account would rather increase than allay this suspicion, and the
account itself at certain points seems to bear it out. On the whole,
however, it may be regarded as a reasonably accurate sketch. Were
it not such, Eusebius would not have accepted it, so_unreser\'edly
as he does, as an account of Christian monks. Lucius' exhibition of
the points of similarity between the practices of the Therapeutae, as
described here, and of early Christian monks, as known from other
sources, is very interesting (see p. 158 sq.). ^^ .
•> 0epa7reuTai and SepaTrevrpi'Se?, " worshipers " or physi-
cians"; from CepaTreuoj, which means either to do service to the
gods, or to tend the sick.
" See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.
6 See Bk. III. chap, 4, note 14.
ii8
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. 17.
companions of the apostles sold their possessions
and their property and distributed to all accord-
ing to the necessity of each one, so that no one
among them was in want. " For as manv as
were possessors of lands or houses," as the ac-
count says, " sold them and brought the prices
of the things that were sold, and laid them at
the apostles' feet, so that distribution was made
unto every man according as he had need." '^
7 Philo bears witness to facts very much
like those here described and then adds
the following account : ** " EveryAvhere in the
world is this race ^ found. For it was fitting that
both Greek "" and Barbarian should share in
what is perfectly good. But the race particu-
larly abounds in Egypt, in each of its so-called
nomes,'" and especially about Alexandria.
8 The best men from every quarter emigrate,
as if to a colony of the Therapeutse's father-
land,^^ to a certain very suitable spot which lies
above the lake Maria'- upon a low hill excellently
situated on account of its security and the
9 mildness of the atmosphere." And then a
little further on, after describing the kind
of houses which they had, he speaks as follows
concerning their churches, which were scattered
about here and there : '^ " In each house there is
a sacred apartment which is called a sanctuary
and monastery," where, quite alone, they per-
form the mysteries of the religious life. They
bring nothing into it, neither drink nor food, nor
any of the other things which contribute to the
necessities of the body, but only the laws, and
the inspired oracles of the prophets, and hymns
.xnd such other things as augment and make
perfect their knowledge and piety."
10 And after some other matters he says : ^'^
" The whole interval, from morning to even-
ing, is for them a time of exercise. For they
read the holy Scriptures, and explain the phil-
osophy of their fathers in an allegorical manner,
regarding the written words as symbols of hid-
den truth which is communicated in obscure
11 figures. They have also writings of ancient
men, who were the founders of their sect.
' Acts ii. 45. 8 De Vita Conteiiiplativa, § 3.
' Namely, the Therapeutae.
"a Heinichen omits, without explanation, the words xai ti)v
'EAAa5(%, which are found in all the other editions that I have ex-
amined. Inasmuch as Heinichen gives no hint of an alternate
reading at this point, I can conclude only that the words were
accidentally omitted by him.
'" Egypt, exclusive of the cities Alexandria and Ptolemais, was
divided mto land districts, originally 36 in number, which were
called I'oiioi (see Mommsen's Proviiiccs of ike Roman Empire,
Scribner's ed. I. p. 255 sq.).
" TrarpicSo. This word, as Schiirer points out {Theol. Litera-
turzeitung, 1880, no. 5), is not a noun, as it is commonly regarded
(and hence translated " fatherland "), but an adjective (and hence
to be translated " eine vaterlandisclie Colonie," "a colony of the
fatherland"); the oi.Kov\i.ivr\, mentioned in the previous paragraph,
being the fatherland of the Therapeuts.
'2 iiTrep KnLvr\% .\Iapia?. In Strabo the name is given as i] Mapew-
TtT or Mapei'a ki\i.vi]. The Lake Mareotis (as it is most commonly
called) lies in the northern part of the Delta, just south of Alexan-
dria. It was in ancient times much more of a lake than it is now,
and the description of the climate as given here is quite accurate.
^ Ibid, ^* trtfii'etoi' Kol \t.ovo.<jir\f>i,ov.
and who left many monuments of the allegorical
method. These they use as models, and
imitate their principles." These things 12
seem to have been stated by a man who
had heard them expounding their sacred writ-
ings. But it is highly probable that the works
of the ancients, which he says they had, were
the Gospels and the writings of the apostles,
and probably some expositions of the ancient
prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, and in many others of
Paul's Epistles. Then again he writes as 13
follows concerning the new psalms which
they composed : ^'"' " So that they not only spend
their time in meditation, but they also compose
songs and hymns to God in every variety of
metre and melody, though they divide them, of
course, into measures of more than common
solemnity." The same book contains an 14
account of many other things, but it seemed
necessary to select those facts which exhibit the
characteristics of the ecclesiastical mode
of life. But if any one thinks that what 15
has been said is not peculiar to the Gospel
polity, but that it can be applied to others be-
sides those mentioned, let him be convinced by
the subsequent words of the same author, in
which, if he is unprejudiced, he will find undis-
puted testimony on this subject. Philo's
words are as follows : " " Having laid down 16
temperance as a sort of foundation in the
soul, they build upon it the other virtues. None
of them may take food or drink before sunset,
since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy
of the light, but attention to the wants of the
body as proper only in the darkness, and there-
fore assign the day to the former, but to the
latter a small portion of the night. But 17
some, in whom a great desire for knowledge
dwells, forget to take food for three days ; and
some are so delighted and feast so luxuriously
upon wisdom, which furnishes doctrines richly
and without stint, that they abstain even twice
as long as this, and are accustomed, after six
days, scarcely to take necessary food." These
statements of Philo we regard as referring
clearly and indisputably to those of our com-
munion.
But if after these things any one still obsti- 18
nately persists in denying the reference, let
him renounce his incredulity and be convinced
by yet more striking examples, which are to be
found nowhere else than in the evangelical
religion of the Christians.''* For they say 19
that there were women also with those of
whom we are speaking, and tliat the most of
them were aged virgins^" who had preserved
i-' Ibid. !■ rbid. § 4-
1" Ibid. '■* See Ibid. § 8.
1" How Eusebius, who knew that Philo lived and wrote during
II. iS.]
TIIIC WRITINGS OF PHILO.
119
their chastity, not out of necessity, as some of
the priestesses among the Greeks,^' but rather by
their own choice, through zeal and a desire for
wisdom. And that in their earnest desire to live
with it as their companion they paid no atten-
tion to the pleasures of the body, seeking not
mortal but immortal progeny, which only the
20 pious soul is able to bear of itself. Then
after a little he adds still more emphati-
cally : -' " They expound the Sacred Scriptures
figuratively by means of allegories. For the
whole law seems to these men to resemble a liv-
ing organism, of which the spoken words consti-
tute the body, while the hidden sense stored up
within the words constitutes the soul. This hid-
den meaning has first been particularly studied
by this sect, which sees, revealed as in a mirror
of names, the surpassing beauties of the
21 thoughts." Why is it necessary to add to
these things their meetings and the respec-
tive occupations of the men and of the women
during those meetings, and the practices which
are even to the present day habitually observed
by us, especially such as we are accustomed to
observe at the feast of the Saviour's passion,
with fasting and night watching and study
22 of the divme Word. These things the
above-mentioned author has related in his
own work, indicating a mode of life which has
been preserved to the present time by us alone,
recording especially the vigils kept in connection
with the great festival, and the exercises per-
formed during those vigils, and the hymns cus-
tomarily recited by us, and describing how, while
one sings regularly in time, the others listen in
silence, and join in chanting only the close of
the hymns ; and how, on the days referred to,
they sleep on the ground on beds of straw, and
to use his own words," " taste no wine at all, nor
any flesh, but water is their only drink, and the
relish with their bread is salt and hyssop."
23 In addition to this Philo describes the order
of dignities which exists among those who
carry on the services of the church, mentioning
the diaconate, and the ofifice of bishop, which
takes the precedence over all the others.-^ But
the reign of Claudius, could have overlooked the fact that Christian-
ity had not at that time been long enough established to admit of
virgins growing old within the Church, is almost inexplicable. It
is but another example of his carelessness in regard to chronology
which comes out so often in his history. Compare Stroth's words:
" In der That ein wichtiger Beweis, dcr gerade der irrigen Meinung
des Eusebius am meisten entgegen ist. Denn sie hatten alt zum
Christenthum kommen miissen, sonst konnten sie ja zu Philo's
Zeiten unmoglich im Christenthum alt geworden sein, dessen Schrift
Eusebius selbst indie Regierung des Claudius setzt. Es istbeinahe
unbegreiflich, wie ein so guter Kopf, wie Eusebius ist, in so grobe
Irrthiimer fallen konnte."
-" For a description of the religious cults among the Greeks and
Romans, that demanded virginity in their priests or priestesses, see
Dbllinger's Heidenthum und Jndenthum, p. 182 and 521 sq.
-1 De I'ita Cotitemplativa, § 10.
" Tbid. § 9.
23 Ibid. §§ 8-10. The author of the D. V. C. mentions young men
that serve at table (SiaKovoO^'Te?), and a president (TrpdeSpo?) who
leads in the exposition of the Scriptures. Eusebius is quite right in
finding in these persons deacons and bishops. The similarity is too
whosoever desires a more accurate knowledge
of these matters may get it from the history
already cited. Ikit that Philo, when he 24
wrote these things, had in view the first
heralds of the Gospel and the customs handed
down from the beginning by the apostles, is clear
to every one.
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Works of Fhilo^ that have come down to us.
Copious in language, comprehensive in 1
thought, sublime and elevated in his views
of divine Scripture, Philo has produced manifold
and various expositions of the sacred books.
On the one hand, he expounds in order the
events recorded in Genesis in the books to which
he gives the title Allegories of the Sacred Laws ;^
on the other hand, he makes successive divisions
of the chapters in the Scriptures which are the
subject of investigation, and gives objections
and solutions, in the books which he quite suit-
ably calls Questions and Answers on Genesis
and Exodus? There are, besides these, 2
treatises expressly worked out by him on
certain subjects, such as the two books On Agri-
culture* and the same number On Drunken-
close to be merely accidental, and the comment of Stroth upon this
passage is quite unwarranted: " Was einer doch alles in einer Stelle
finden kann, wenn er es darin finden will! Philo sagt, dass bei ihren
gemeinschaftlichen Gastmahlern einige bei Tische dienten (Siaxo-
i/oOfTes), hieraus macht Eusebius Diakonate; und dass bei ihrcn
Untersuchungen iiber die Bibel einer (TrpdeSpo;) den Vorsitz habe;
hieraus macht Eusebius die bischbfliche wUrde {kTX{.rjKo-nr\% Trpoe-
1 On Philo's works, see Schiirer, Gesch. des jud. Volkes, II.
p. 831 sqq. The best (though it leaves much to be desired) com-
plete edition of Philo's works is that of Mangey: 2 vols., folio,
London, 1742; English translation of Philo's works by Vonge, 4 vols. ,
London, 1854-55. Upon Philo's life, see chaps. 4-6, above. Eusebius,
in his P>-<ep. Ez'ang., quotes extensively from Philo's works and
preserves some fragments of which we should otherwise be ignorant.
2 fo^toi' iepoji' dAATjyopiai. This work is still extant, and, ac-
cording to Schiirer, includes all the works contained in the first vol-
ume of Mangey 's edition (except the De Opificio Mtitidi, upon
which see Schiirer, p. 846 sqq. and note 11, below), comprising 16
different titles. The work forms the second great group of writings
upon the Pentateuch, and is a very full and allegorical commentary
upon Genesis, beginning with the second chapter and following it
verse by verse through the fourth chapter; but from that point on
certain passages are selected and treated at length under special
titles, and under those titles, in Schiirer's opinion, were published
by Philo as separate works, though really forming a part of one
complete whole. From this much confusion has resulted. Eusebius
embraces all of the works as far as the end of chap. 4 (including five
titles in Mangey) under the one general title, but from that point on
he too quotes separate works under special titles, but at the end
(§ 5, below) he unites them all as the "extant works on Genesis."
Many portions of the commentary are now missing. Compare
Schiirer, ibid. pp. 838-846.
3 ^qTrifj-ara Kal \vcrei';: Qtiaesiioites et sohitiones. According
to Schiirer (ibid. p. 836 sq.), a comparatively brief catechetical inter-
pretation of the Pentateuch in the form of questions and answers,
embracing probably six books on Genesis and five on Exodus, and
forming the first great group of writings upon the Pentateuch. So
far as Eusebius seems to have known, they covered only Genesis and
Exodus, and this is all that we are sure of, though some think that
they included also the remainder of the Pentateuch. About half of
this work (four books on Genesis and two on Exodus) is extant
in an Armenian version (published by Aucher in 2 vols., Venet. 1822
and '26, and in Latin by Ritter, vols. 6 and 7 of his edition of Philo's
works) ; and numerous Latin and Greek fragments still exist (see
Schiirer, p. 837 sqq.).
* rrepl yciop-yioi? 6vo: De Agrtcultttra duo (so Jerome, de vir.
ill. 11). Upon Genesis ix. 20, forming a part (as do all the works
mentioned in §§ 2-4 except Oti the Three Virtues, and On the Un-
written Laws, which belong to the third group of writings on the
I20
THE CHURCH HiSTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. iS.
ness ;'^ and some others distinguished by different
titles corresponding to the contents of each ; for
instance, Concerning the things zahich the Sober
Mind desires and execrates^ On the Confusion of
Tongues^ On Flight and Discovery^ On Assem-
bly for the sake of Instruction^ On the question,
* Who is heir to things divine ? ' or On the divis-
ion of things into equal and uiiequal^^ and still
further the work On the three Virtues which
3 with others have been described by Moses}""
In addition to these is the work On those
whose Names have been changed and why they have
been changed^- in which he says that he had
4 written also two books On Covenants?'^ And
Pentateuch) of the large commentary, v6\i.wv UpCii' oAXijyopiai, men-
tioned above (note 2). This work is still extant, and is given by
Mangey, I. 300-356, as two works with distinct titles: Trepi yiMpyia-;
and Trepi (j>vTovpyCa^ Na>e to BevT^pov (Schiirer, p. 843).
6 TTtpl fieSrjs Too-aiJTa: Z>e ebrictate duo (so Jerome, ibid.).
Upon Gen. ix. 21. Only the second book is extant (Mangey, I.
357-391), but from its beginning it is plain that another book
originally preceded it (Schiirer, p. 843).
fi Trepi uiv J'i)i|/a5 6 vo\]<; euxerat Kai Karaparai. Jerome, de vtr.
ill. II, de his qu<e soisn prccamur ct detestamur. Upon Gen. ix.
24. Still extant, and given by Mangey (1 . 392-403) , who, however,
prints the work under the title Trepi toO efei-jji/ze Nwe: De Sobric-
iatt-; though in two of the best MSS. (according to Mangey, I-__392,
note) the title agrees closely with that given by Eusebius (Schiirer,
P- 843).
' Trepi CTvy/cvo^eo)? Tuiv SiaKiKTiov. Upon Gen. xi. 1-9. Still ex-
tant, and given by Mang;ey, I. 404-435 (Schiirer, p. 844).
* Trepi </)uv)js Kai ei/pe<Te<o5. The same title is found in Johannes
Monachus (Mangey, I. 546, note), and it is probably correct, as the
work treats of the flight and the discovery of Hagar (Gen. xvi. 6-14).
It is still extant, and is given by Mangey (I. 546-577) under the title
Trepi (ftvydSMV, ' On Fugitives.' The text of Eusebius in this place
has been very much corrupted. The reading which I give is sup-
ported by good MS. authority, and is adopted by Valesius, Stroth,
and Laemmer. ButNicephorus reads Trepi (jjvyris Koi aipe'creojs xai 6
Trepi </)U(Teu)s Kai eupeffeios, which is also supported by MS. author-
ity, and is adopted by Burton, Schweglcr, and Heinichen. But upon
comparing the title of the work, as given by Johannes Monachus
and as found in the various MSS. of Philo, wuh the contents of the
work itself, there can be little doubt of the correctness of the shorter
reading. Of the second work, which the longer reading introduces
into the text of Eusebius, we have no knowledge, and Philo can
iiardly have written it. Schiirer, who adopts the shorter reading,
expresses himself very strongly (p. 845, note 34).
8 Trepi T^s Trpos to. naiSev/xaTa avvoSov, " On Assembly for the
sake of instruction." Upon Gen. xvi. 1-6, which is interpreted to
mean that one must make himself acquainted with the lower branches
of knowledge (Hagar) before he can go on to the higher (Sarah),
and from them obtain the fruit, viz. : virtue (Isaac). Still extant, and
given by Mangey, I. 519-545 (Schiirer, 844 sqq.).
^^ Trepi Te Toi), Tt5 6 rujv OGitov eo"Ti KATjpoi'op-o?, rj Trcpt ttj? et9 Ta
laa Kai h'airia Top.^?. From this double title Jerome {de vir. ill.
11) wrongly makes two works. The writing is still extant, and is
given by Mangey (I. 473-518) under the title irepi toO tis b liav
Vtiuiu irpaypLOiTiov (cAijpoi'op.os (Schiirer, 844).
'* Trept Tiov rpitav apeTojv, a<; tjvv aAAat? av^ypaipe Mtovo"^'?.
This work is still extant, and is given by Mangey under the title
Trepi Tpiuif ap^Tujv irjrot jrepi ai'Speia^ Kai ffn\ai>6pix}Tria<; Kai ^era-
voios: Trepi ar5peia?,]I. 375-383; Trepi <|)tAai'Opwiria?, II. 383-405;
Trepi tifTavoiai;, II. 405-407. Jerome gives the simple title JJc tri-
bus viriutibns liber iinus.
According to Schiirer (p. 852 sqq.) it forms an appendix to the
third great group of works upon the Pentateuch, containing those
laws which do not belong to any one of the ten commandments in
particular, but fall under the head of general cardinal virtues. The
third group, as Schiirer describes it (p. 846), aims to give for non-
Jews a complete view of the Mosaic legislation, and embraces, first,
the work upon the Creation (which in the MSS. and editions of
Philo is wrongly placed at the beginning in connection with the great
Allegorical Coiiuneiitary, and is thus included in that by Eusebius
in his list of Philo's works, so that he does not make special mention
of it) ; second, the lives of great and good men, the living unwrit-
ten linu ; and third, the Mosaic legislation proper (i. The ten
commandments; 2. The special laws connected with each of these) ;
and finally an appendix treating of certain cardinal virtues, and of
reward and punishments. This group is more historic and less alle-
goric than the two Others, which are rather esoteric and scientific.
'- Trepi Tu)i' iJ.fTovoix.aiotiivu>v Ka\ uiv erexa iJ-eTovop-ai^ovTai, De
Miitatione no>ninuin. Upon Gen. xvii. 1-22. This work is still
extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 578-619. See Schiirer, p. 485.
13 ^y (J (/)7j(Tt (Tui'Tera Yerat Kai Trtpi ciaQriKijjv trpunov Ka\ &iv-
Ttpov. I^early all the MSS., followed by some of the editors, read
there is also a work of his On Immigration,^*
and one On the life of a Wise Man made perfect
in Righteousness, or On tinwritten laws ; '^ and
still further the work On Giants or On the Im-
mutability of God,^^ and a first, second, third,
fourth and fifth book On the proposition, that
Dreams according to Moses are sent by God}''
These are the books on Genesis that have
come down to us. But on Exodus we are ac- 5
quainted with the first, second, third, fourth
and fifth books of Questions and Ansivers ;^^
also with that On the Tabernacle}'^ and that On
the ten Conunandments^ and the four books
TrpojTT)? Kai ieuTe'pa? instead of npHiTOV KaX Sevrepor, thus making
Eusebius mention a work " On the first and second covenants," in-
stead of a first and second book "On the covenants." It is plain
from Philo's own reference to the work (on p. 586 in Mangey 's ed.)
that he wrote two books " On covenants," and not a work " On the
two covenants." I have therefore felt warranted in reading with
Heinichen and some other editors Trpcuroi' Kai Sevirepoi', a reading
which is more natural in view of the absence of an article with
SiaOrjKuii', and which is confirmed by Nicephorus Callistus. This
reading must be correct unless we are to suppose that Eusebius mis-
read Philo. Fabricius suggests that Eusebius probably wrote a Kai
P', which the copyists wrongly referred to the " covenants " instead
of to the number of the books, and hence gave the feminine instead
of the neuter form.
This work " On covenants," or " On the whole discussion con-
cerning covenants" (as Philo gives it), is now lost, as it was already
in the time of Eusebius; at least he knew of it only from Philo's
reference to it. See Schiirer, p. 845.
ii Trepi aTTotKia?: De I^ligratione Abrahavii. Upon Gen. xii.
1-6. The work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 436-472.
See Schiirer, p. 844.
1^ ^loO aro({iov Toi) Kara SLKaiO(TVvr]v TcAeiufleVTOs, jj vopiuiv aypd-
(fxiii'. (According to Schiirer, Si.Kaiocxvvr)v here is a mistake for
^iSao-KoAiai', which is the true reading in the original title.) This
work, which is still extant, is given by Mangey, II. 1-40, under the
same title (SiSacrKaAiar, however, instead of 6iKato<Tiit'r)i'), with the
addition, 6 eari Trepi 'Xjipadp.: De Abra/iaino. It opens the second
division of the third great group of writings on the Pentateuch (see
note II, above) : the biographical division, mentioning Enos, Enoch
and Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but dealing chiefly with
Abraham. The biographies of Isaac and Jacob probably followed,
but they are lost, and we have no trace of them, so that the life of
Joseph (see below, note 26) in the MSS. follows directly upon that
of -"Abraham (Schiirer, p. 848 sqq.).
^^ Trepi yiyai'Ttoi', ij Trepi Toi) p.T) Tpe'Tre<r0at to ^eioi'. Upon Gen.
vi. 1-4 and 4-12. The two parts of this work, both of which are
still extant, form really but one book; for instance, Johannes Mona-
chus {incdittis) quotes from the latter part under the title Trepi
yiydi'Tcoi' (according to Mangey, I. 262, note, and 272, note). But
the two are divided in Mangey 's edition, where the first is given
under the title irepi yiya.vTt»v (I. 262-272), the second under the
title oTi aTpeTTToi' (I. 272-299). See Schiirer, p. 843. The title is
found in the form given at the beginning of this note in all the MSS.
of Eusebius except two, which have Kai instead of t), thus making
two separate works. This reading is adopted by Heinichen and by
Gloss, but is poorly supported by IMS. authority, and since the two
titles cover only one work, as already mentioned, the r] is more
natural than the Kai.
^^ -n^pX Te Toi) KttTa Ma>u<re'a OeoTre'jLiTrTOV? etvat tou9 OMetpov?
TrpcuToi', ^euTepoi', k.t.A. Two books are extant, the first upon Gen.
xxviii. 12 sqq. ancil xxxi. 11 sqq. (given by Mangey,!. 620-658), the
second upon Gen. xxxvii. and xl.-xli. (given by Mangey, I. 659-
699). Jerome {de vir. ill. 11) follows Eu.sebius in mentioning five
books, and there is no occasion to doubt the report. Schiirer thinks
that the two extant books are the second and third of the original
five (Schiirer, 845 sqq.).
18 C,^\rr)p.a^a Kai Aiio-ei?; see above, note 3. Eusebius knew only
five books upon Exodus, and there is no reason to think there were
any more.
'•' Philo wrote a work entitled Trepi |3iou Jlcoo-eu)?: Vita Mosis,
which is still extant, but is not mentioned in the catalogue of Euse-
bius. It contains a long description of the tabernacle, anil conse-
quently Schiirer concludes that the work mentioned here by Eusebius
(irepi Tij? crK»)>'T)s) represents that portion of the larger work. If this
be the case, it is poss^ible that the section in the MSS. used by Euse-
bius was detached from the rest of the work and constituted an inde-
pendent book. The omission of the title of the larger work is doubt-
less due, as Schiirer remarks, to the imperfect transmission of the
text of Eusebius' catalogue. See Schiirer, p. 855.
2" Trepi Tiui' SeKa Aoyiioi': De Decalogo. Still extant, and given
by Mangey, II. 180-209. Jerome has the conden.sed title de iabir-
naculo i-t decalogo libri guatttior, and this introduces the third divis-
ion of the third general groiq) of works upon the Pentateuch (see
note II, above), and, according to Schiirer, should be joined directly
II. i8.]
THE WRITINGS OF PIIILO.
121
On the laws 7vhich refer especially to the princi-
pal divisions of the ten Comntand/nents,'^ and an-
other On animals intended for sacrifice and On
the kinds of sacrifice^- and another Oti the re-
wards fixed in the huo for the good, and on the
punishments and curses fixed for the wickcdP
6 In addition to all these there are extant
also some single-volumed works of his ; as
for instance, the work On Providence^-'' and the
book composed by him On the Jewsj-^ and The
Statesman ; "" and still further, Alexander, or On
the possession of reason by the irrational ani-
malsr' Besides these there is a work On the
to the Si'o? TToAiTiKo?, or Life of Joseph, and not separated from it
by the insertion of the Life of Moses (as is done by ftlangey) , which
does not belong to this group (Schiirer, p. 849 sqq.).
2t T<x TT-pl Titiv ara^epOfjteVtoi' kv elSet v<ni.wv ei? Ta <Tui'Teu'0»'Ti
Ke(J)iAait ruji' ?>i<a. AoY" I'l a^'y'i> : De speciatibits Icgibits. A part
of the third division of the third general group of works (see note
II, above). It is still extant in four books, each with a special title,
and each containing many subdivisions. They are given by Mangey :
first book, II. 210-269, in seven parts: de circitiiicisioiie, de vioii-
archia Liber L, de iiionarchia Liber n.,de prcEiniis sacerdo-
imn, de victimis, de sacrificantibus, or de victiiiiis offerentibns,
de inerccdc iiieretricis iioH accipienda in sacrariuin ; second
book, 270-29S, incomplete in Mangey, but entire in Tischendorf's
Philonca, p. 1-83; third book, 299-334; fourth book, 335-374:
made up like the first of a number of tracts on special subjects.
Philo, in this work, attempts to bring all the Mosaic laws into a sys-
tem under the ten rubrics of the decalogue: for instance, under the
first two commandments, the laws in regard to priests and sacrifices;
under the fourth, the laws in regard to the Sabbath, &c. See
Schiirer, p. 850 sqq.
22 Trept Ta>i' et? Ta? tepovpyta? ^lauiv, Ka\ rivfx Ta twv QvcriuiP
clSrj. This is really only a portion of the first book of the work just
mentioned, given in Mangey under the title de victimis (II. 237-
250). It is possible that these various sections of books — or at least
this one — circulated separately, and that thus Eusebius took it for
an independent work. See Schiirer, p. 851.
23 TTtpi, Tuji' TTpoKtifxivuiv iv TO) 1'0/xcu Tois fj-iv iyaflois ad\MV,
TOis 5e TTOwTypois eiriTtjuiior Kixi apior, still extant and given by Man-
gey (incorrectly as two separate works) under the titles wepi aOKtav
(Cat imTi[).i.wv, de prinniis et poenis (II. 408-428), and Trept apiav,
de execrationibus (II. 429-437). The writing forms a sort of epi-
logue to the work upon the Mosaic legislation. Schiirer, p. 854.
-* TO Trepl Trpoi'ota;, De providcntia. This work is extant only
in an Armenian version, and is published with a Latin translation by
Aucher, Vol. I. p. 1-121 (see above, note 3), and in Latin by Ritter
(Vol. VIII.). Two Greek fragments, one of considerable extent, are
preserved by Eusebius in his Praparatio Evang. VII. 21, and
VIII. 14. In the Armenian the work consists of two books, but the
first is of doubtful genuineness, and Eusebius seems to have known
only one, for both quotations in the Pnefi. Evang. are from the
present second book, and the work is cited in the singular, as also
in the present passage, where to is to be read instead of Ta, though
some MSS. have the latter. The work (which is not found in
Mangey 's ed.) is one of Philo's separate works which does not
fall under any of the three groups upon the Pentateuch.
25 Trep't 'lovSai'ior, which is doubtless to be identified with the 17
uTrep 'louSaiwi' k-noKoyla, which is no longer extant, but which Euse-
bius mentions, and from which he quotes in his Pra-p. Evang.
VIII. 2. The fragment given by Eusebius is printed by Mangey in
Vol. II. p. 632-634, and in Dahne's opinion {TheoL Siudiat jind
Kritiketi, 1883, p. 990) the two preceding fragments given by Man-
gey (p. 626 sqq.) also belong to this Apology. The work entitled
de nobilitate (Mangey, II. 437-444) possibly formed a part of the
Apology. This is Dahne's opmion (see ibid. p. ggo, 1037), with
whom Schiirer agrees. The genuineness of the Apology is generally
admitted, though it has been disputed on insufficient grounds by
Gratz {Gesch. der Juden, III. p. 680, third ed.), who is followed by
Hilgenfeld (in the Zeitschrift fur wiss. Theologie, 1882, p. 275
sq. and in his Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthuins, p. 87 sq.). This
too, like the preceding, was one of the separate works of Philo. See
Schiirer, p. 861 sq.
2ii 6 TToAtTtKos. Still extant, and given by Mangey (II. 41-79)
under the title 3io? TroAtTiicbs oTrep iaiX nepi '\uirTri<f>: De fosepho.
Photius, Bib. Cod. 103, gives the title Trepl ^tou ttoAitikoO. This
forms a part of the second division of the third great group upon the
Pentateuch (see above, note 11), and follows directly the Life of
Abraham, the Lives of Isaac and Jacob probably having fallen out
(compare note 15, above). The work is intended to show how the
wise man should conduct himself in affairs of state or political life.
See Schiirer, p. 849.
-' 6 '.\Ae^ai'Sp09 r[ Trepi tov Adyou ex^'*' ''■''' aAoya C,uia, De
Ale.xandro et (jitod propriain rationcm miita animnlia habeant,
as the title is given by Jerome {de vir. ill. c. 11). The work is ex-
tant only in Armenian, and is given by Aucher, I. p. 123-172, and
proposition that every wicked man is a slave, to
which is subjoined the work On the propo-
sition that every good man is free.'* After 7
these was composed by him the work On
the contemplative life, or On suppliants,^^ from
which we have drawn the facts concerning the
life of the apostolic men ; and still further, the
Interpretation of the Hebrew names in the law
and in the prophets are said to be the result
of his industry.*' And he is said to have 8
read in the presence of the whole Roman
Senate during the reign of Claudius ^^ the work
which he had written, when he came to Rome
under Caius, concerning Caius' hatred of the
gods, and to which, with ironical reference to
its character, he had given the title On the Vir-
tues?- And his discourses were so much ad-
mired as to be deemed worthy of a place in the
libraries.
At this time, while Paul was completing 9
his journey " from Jerusalem and round
about unto Illyricum,"^ Claudius drove the Jews
out of Rome ; and Aquila and Priscilla, leaving
Rome with the other Jews, came to Asia, and
there abode with the apostle Paul, who was
confirming the churches of that region whose
in Latin by Ritter, Vol. VII. Two short Greek fragments are also
found in the Florilcgiutn of Leontius and Johannes, according to
Schiirer. This book is also one of the separate works of Philo, and
belongs to his later writings. See Schiirer, p. 860 sqq.
-8 6 Trepl ToO SoiJAoi' ^ivai tto-vto. ^avKov, u> efij? icrnv 6 Trepl toO
TTai'Ttt (TTTOvSalov eKevBepov elvai. These two works formed origi-
nally the two halves of a single work, in which the subject was
treated from its two sides, — the slavery of the wicked man and the
freedom of the good man. The first half is lost; but the second half
is extant, and is given by Mangey (II. 445-470) . A long fragment
of the extant second half is given also by Eusebius, in his Prtrp.
Evang. VIII. 12. The genuineness of the work has been disputed
by some, but is defended with success by Lucius, Der Esscnisiiuis,
p. 13-23, Strasburg, 1881 (Schiirer, p. 85).
-■' See the preceding chapter; and on the work, see note 2 on that
chapter.
3" Toil' iv vofj-ta Se Kai irpo(f)>JTai? 'E^SpaiKMi' 0V0[x6.ToiV o.\ tpp.»)-
I'eiai. The way in which Eusebius speaks of this work (toO oAnov
(TnovSal eii'ai Aeyoi'Tat) shows that it lay before him as an anony-
mous work, which, however, was " said to be the result of Philo's
industry." Jerome, too, in speaking of the same work (at the
beginning of his own work, De fiomiiiibus Hebraicis) , says that,
according to the testimony of Origen, it was the work of Philo.
For Jerome, too, therefore, it was an anonymous work. This testi-
mony of Origen cannot, according to Schiirer, be found in his ex-
tant works, but in his Cojiunent. in foaiin. II. 27 (ed. Lommatzsch,
I. 50) he speaks of a work upon the same subject, the author of
which he does not know. The book therefore in view of the exist-
ing state of the tradition in regard to it, is usually thought to be the
work of some other writer than Philo. In its original form it is no
longer extant (and in the absence of this original it is impossible to
decide the question of authorship), though there exist a number of
works upon the same subject which are probably based upon this
lost original. Jerome, e.g., informs us that his Liber de Nomini-
btis Hebraicis (Migne, III. 771) is a revision of it. See Schiirer,
p. 865 sq.
31 " This report is very improbable, for a work full of hatred to
the Romans and of derogatory references to the emperor Caligula
could not have been read before the Roman Senate, especially when
the author was a Jew" (Gloss). It is in fact quite unlikely that
Philo was in Rome during the reign of Claudius (see above, chap. 17,
note i). The report given here by Eusebius owes its origin perhaps
to the imagination of some man who supposed that Philo was in
Rome during the reign of Claudius (on the ground of the other tra-
dition already referred to), and whose fancy led him to picture Philo
as obtaining at that time his revenge upon the emperor Caligula in
this dramatic way. It was not difficult to imagine that this bitterly
sarcastic and vivid work might have been intended for public read-
ing, and it was an attractive suggestion that the Senate might have
constituted the audience.
32 See above, chap. 5, note i.
'3 Romans xv. ig.
122
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. i8.
foundations he had newly laid. The sacred
book of the Acts informs us also of these
things.^
CHAPTER XIX.
The Calamity which be/ell the Jews i7i Jerusalem
on the Day of the Passover.
1 While Claudius was still emperor, it
happened that so great a tumult and dis-
turbance took place in Jerusalem at the feast of
the Passover, that thirty thousand of those
Jews alone who were forcibly crowded together
at the gate of the temple perished,^ being
trampled under foot by one another. Thus the
festival became a season of mourning for all
the nation, and there was weeping in every
house. These things are related literally- by
Josephus.
2 But Claudius appointed Agrippa," son of
Agrippa, king of the Jews, having sent
FeUx* as procurator of the whole country of
3* See Acts xviii. 2, i8, 19 sqq.
1 This disturbance (described by Jos. B. y. II. 12. i, and Ant.
XX. 5. 3) took place in 48 a.d. while Cumanus was procurator of
Judca. During the Passover feast the procurator, as was the cus-
tom, brought extra troops to Jerusalem to guard against any uproar
which might arise among the great mass of people. One of the
soldiers, with the view of insulting the Jews, conducted himself
indecently in their presence, whereupon so great an uproar arose
that the procurator felt obliged to collect his troops upon the
temple hill, but the appearance of the soldiers so greatly alarmed
the multitude assembled there that they fled in all directions and
crushed each other to death in their eagerness to escape. Josephus,
in his Jewish War, gives the number of the slain as ten thousand,
and in ihsAuiiguiiies as twenty thousand. The latter work was writ-
ten last, but knowing Josephus' fondness for exaggerating numbers,
we shall perhaps not accept the correction as any nearer the truth.
That Eusebius gives thirty thousand need not arouse suspicion as to
his honesty, — he could have had no object for changing " twenty"
to " thirty," when the former was certainly great enough, — we need
simply remember how easily numbers become altered in transcrip-
tion. Valesius says that this disturbance took place under Quadratus
in 52 A.D. (quoting Pearson's Ann. Paitll. p. 11 sqq., and Tacitus,
Ann. XII. 54). But Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the eighth
year of Claudius (48 A.D.), and Orosius, VII. 4, gives the seventh
year. Jost and Ewald agree with Eusebius in regard to the date.
- Eusebius simply sums up in the one sentence what fills half a
page in Josephus.
■* Herod Agrippa II., son of Herod Agrippa I. At the time of
his father's death (44 a.d.) he was but seventeen years of age, and
his youth deterred Claudius from giving him the kingdom of his
father, which was therefore again converted into a Roman province,
and Fadus was sent as procurator. In 49 a.d. Agrippa was given
the kingdom of Chalcis which had belonged to his uncle Herod (a
brother of Agrippa I.), and in 53 a.d. he was transferred to the
tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias with the title of King. He was
never king of the Jews in the same sense in which his father was, as
Judea remained a Roman province throughout his reign, while his
dominion comprised only the northeastern part of Palestine. He
enjoyed, however, the ri-^ht of appointing and removing the high
priests, and under Xero his domain was somewhat increased by the
addition of several cities of Galilee, and Perea. He sided with the
Romans in the Jewish war, and afterwards went to Rome, where he
died in 100 .\.d., the last prince of the Herodian line. It was before
this Agrippa th.it Paul made his defense recorded in Acts xxvi.
* Felix, a freedman of Claudius, succeeded Cumanus as procurator
of Judea in 52 (or, according to Wicseler, 53) a.d. The territory over
which he ruled included Samaria and the greater part of Galilee and
Perea, to which Judea was added by Nero, according to Josephus,
n. 7. II. 13. 2. Ewald, in the attempt to reconcile Tacitus, Ann.
XII. 54, and Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2-7. i, — the former of whom
makes Cumanus and Felix contemporary procurators, each over a
part of the province, while the latter makes Felix the successor of
Cumanus, — concludes that Felix was sent to Judea as the assistant
of Cumanus, and became procurator upon the banishment of the
latter. This is not impossible, though we have no testimony to
support it. Compare Wicseler, p. 67, note. Between 59 and 61
(according to Wieseler, in 60; see chap. 22, note i, below) he was
succeeded by Porcius Festus. For the relations of these two pro-
curators to the apostle Paul, see Acts xx. sqq. Eusebius, in his
Samaria and Galilee, and of the land called
Perea.^ And after he had reigned thirteen years
and eight months*' he died, and left Nero as
his successor in the empire.
CHAPTER XX.
The Events which took Place in Jerusalem dur-
ing the Reign of Nero.
Josephus again, in the twentieth book of 1
his Antiquities, relates the quarrel which
arose among the priests during the reign of
Nero, while Felix was procurator of Judea.
His words are as follows ^ : " There arose a 2
quarrel between the high priests on the
one hand and the priests and leaders of the
people of Jerusalem on the other.^ And each
of them collected a body of the boldest and
most restless men, and put himself at their
head, and whenever they met they hurled invec-
tives and stones at each other. And there was
no one that would interpose ; but these things
were done at will as if in a city destitute
of a ruler. And so great was the shame- 3
lessness and audacity of the high priests
that they dared to send their servants to the
threshing-floors to seize the tithes due to the
priests ; and thus those of the priests that were
poor were seen to be perishing of want. In
this way did the violence of the factions
prevail over all justice." And the same 4
author again relates that about the same
time there sprang up in Jerusalem a certain
kind of robbers,^ " who by day," as he says, " and
in the middle of the city slew those who
met them." For, especially at the feasts, 5
they mingled with the multitude, and with
short swords, which they concealed under their
garments, they stabbed the most distinguished
men. y\nd when they fell, the murderers them-
selves were among those who expressed their
indignation. And thus on account of the con-
Chron., puts the accession of Felix in the eleventh year of Clau-
dius (51 A.D.), and the accession of Festus in the fourteenth year
(54 A.D.), but both of these dates are clearly incorrect (of. Wieseler,
p. 68, note).
•"' Eusebius evidently supposed the Roman province at this time
to have been limited to Samaria, Galilee, and Perea; but in this he
was wrong, for it included also Judea (see preceding note), Agripjja
II. having under him only the tetrarchies mentioned above (note 3)
and a few cities of Galilee and Perea. He had, however, the au-
thority over the temple and the power of appointing the high priests
(see Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 11 and 9. i, 4, 6, 7), which had been given
by Claudius to his vmcle, the king of Chalcis (Jos. Ant. XX. i. 3).
" Claudius ruled from Jan. 24, 41 a.d., to Oct. 13, 54.
' Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 8. Felix showed himself throughout very
mean and cruel, and his procuratorship was marked with continual
disturbances.
2 This disturbance arose toward the end of Felix's term, under
the high priest Ishmael, who had been appointed by Agrippa but a
short time before. No cause is given by Josephus for the quarrel.
■> A. 7. II. 13. 3. These open robberies and murders, which
took place in Jerusalem at this period, were in part a result of the
conduct of Felix himself in the murder of Jonathan (see the ne.vt
note). At least his conduct in this case started the practice, which
was kept up with zeal by the ruffians who were so numerous at
that time.
II. 22.]
PAUL'S ROMAN CAPTIVITY.
123
fidence which was reposed in them by all,
6 they remained undiscovered. The first
that was slain by them was Jonathan the
high priest ; * and after him many were killed
every day, until the fear became worse than
the evil itself, each one, as in battle, hourly
expecting death.
CHAPTER XXI.
The Egyptian, toho is mentioned also in the Acts
of the Apostles.
1 After other matters he proceeds as fol-
lows : ^ " P.ut the Jews were afflicted with
a greater plague than these by the Egyptian
false prophet.^ For there appeared in the land
an impostor who aroused faith in himself as a
prophet, and collected about thirty thousand
of those whom he had deceived, and led them
from the desert to the so-called Mount of Olives
whence he was prepared to enter Jerusalem by
force and to overpower the Roman garrison and
seize the government of the people, using those
who made the attack with him as body-
2 guards. But Felix anticipated his attack,
and went out to meet him with the Roman
legionaries, and all the people joined in the
defense, so that when the battle was fought the
Egyptian fled with a few followers, but the most
of them were destroyed or taken captive."
3 Josephus relates these events in the second
book of his History.^ But it is worth while
■* This high priest, Jonathan, had used his influence in procuring
the appointment of Felix as procurator, and was therefore upon inti-
mate terms with him, and took the liberty of advising and rebulcing
him at pleasure; until at last he became so burdensome to Felix
that he bribed a trusted friend of Jonathan to bring about his mur-
der. The friend accomplished it by introducing a number of robbers
into the city, who, being unknown, mingled freely with the people
and slew Jonathan and many others with him, in order to turn away
suspicion as to the object of the crime. .See Jos. A>it. XX. 8. 5.
Josephus has omitted to mention Jonathan's appointment to the
high priesthood, and this has led Valesius to conclude that he was
not really a high priest, but simply one of the upper class of priests.
But this conclusion is unwarranted, as Josephus expressly calls him
the high priest in the passage referred to (cf. also the remarks of
Reland, quoted in Havercamp's ed. of Josephus, p. 912). Wieselcr
(p. 77, note) thinks that Jonathan was not high priest at this time,
but that he had been high priest and was called so on that account.
He makes Ananias high priest from 48 to 57, quoting Anger, De
teiiiponim in Act. Ap. rationc.
> Jos. B. 7. II. 13. s.
^ An Egyptian Jew; one of the numerous magicians and false
prophets that arose during this century. He prophesied that Jeru-
salem, which had made itself a heathen city, would be destroyed by
God, who would throw down the walls as he had the walls of
Jericho, and then he and his followers, as the true Israel and the
army of God, would gain the victory over the oppressors and rule
the world. For this purpose he collected his followers upon the
Mount of Olives, from whence they were to witness the falling of
the walls and begin their attack.
■■= Josephus gives two different accounts of this event. In the
B. y. he says that this Egyptian led thirty thousand men out of the
desert to the Mount of Olives, but that Felix attacked them, and
the Egyptian "escaped with a few," while most of his followers
were either destroyed or captured. In Ant. XX. 8. 6, which was
written later, he states that the Egyptian led a multitude " out from
Jerusalem " to the Mount of Olives, and that when they were at-
tacked by Felix, four hundred were slain and two hundred taken
captive. There seems to be here a glaring contradiction, but we
are able to reconcile the two accounts by supposing the Egyptian to
have brought a large following of robbers from the desert, which
was augmented by a great rabble from Jerusalem, until the number
comparing the account of the Egyptian given
here with that contained in the Acts of the
Apostles. In the time of Felix it was said to
Paul by the centurion in Jerusalem, when the
multitude of the Jews raised a disturbance
against the apostle, " Art not thou he who before
these days made an uproar, and led out into the
wilderness four thousand men that were mur-
derers?"* These are the events which took
place in the time of Fclix.^
CHAPTER XXII.
Paul having been sent bound from Judea to
Rome, made his Defense, and was acquitted
of every Charge.
Festus^ was sent by Nero to be Felix's 1
successor. Under him Paul, having made his
defense, was sent bound to Rome.^ Aristarchus
was with him, whom he also somewhere in his
epistles quite naturally calls his fellow-prisoner.^
reached thirty thousand, and that when attacked the rabble dis-
persed, but that F'elix slew or took captive the six hundred robbers,
against whom his attack had been directed, while the Egj'ptian
escaped with a small number (i.e. small in comparison with the
thirty thousand), who may well have been the four thousand men-
tioned by the author of the Acts in the passage quoted below by
Eusebius. It is no more difficult therefore to reconcile the Acts and
Josephus in this case than to reconcile Josephus with himself, and
we have no reason to assume a mistake upon the part of either one,
though as already remarked, numbers are so treacherous in trans-
cription that the difference may really have been originally less than
it is. Whenever the main elements of two accounts are in substan-
tial agreement, little stress can be laid upon a difference in figures.
Cf. Tholuck, Glaiibzuurdigkeit, p. 169 (quoted by Hackett, Com.
on Acts, p. 254).
* Acts xxi. 38.
^ Valesius and Heinichen assert that Eusebius is incorrect in
assigning this uproar, caused by the Egyptian, to the reign of Nero,
as he seems to do. But their assertion is quite groundless, for Jo-
sephus in both of his accounts relates the uproar among events
which he expressly assigns to Nero's reign, and there is no reason
to suppose that the order of events given by him is incorrect. Vale-
sius and Heinichen proceed on the erroneous assumption that Fcstus
succeeded Felix in the second year of Nero, and that therefore, since
Paul was two years in Csesarea before the recall of Felix, the upris-
ing of the Egyptian, which was referred to at the time of Paul's arrest
and just before he was carried to CcEsarea, must have taken place be-
fore the end of the reign of Claudius. But it happens to be a fact
that Felix was succeeded by Festus at the earliest not before the
sLxth year of Nero (see chap. 22, note 2, below). There is, there-
fore, no ground for accusing either Josephus or Eusebius of a blun-
der in the present case.
1 The exact year of the accession of Festus is not known, but it
is known that his death occurred before the summer of 62 a.d. ; for
at that time his successor, Albinus, was already procurator, as we
can see from Josephus, B. y. VI. 5. 3. But from the events recorded
by Josephus as happening during his term of office, we know he
must have been procurator at least a year; his accession, therefore,
took place certainly as early as 61 a.d., and probably at least a year
earlier, i.e. in 60 a.d., the date fixed by Wieseler. The widest pos-
sible margin for his accession is from 59-61. Upon this whole ques-
tion, see Wieseler, p. 66 sqq. Festus died while in office. He seems
to have been a just and capable governor, — in this quite a con-
trast to his predecessor.
- Acts XXV. sqq. The determination of the year in which Paiil
was sent as a prisoner to Rome depends in part upon the determi-
nation of the year of Festus' accession. He was in Rome (which he
reached in the spring) at least two years before the Neronic perse-
cution (June, 64 A.D.), therefore as early as 62 a.d. He was sent
from Csesarea the previous autumn, therefore as early as the autumn
of 61. If Festus became procurator in 61, this must have been the
date. But if, as is probable, Festus became procurator in 60, then
Paul was sent to Rome in the autumn of the same year, and reached
Rome in the spring of 61. This is now the commonly accepted
date; but the year 62 cannot be shut out (cf. Wieseler, ikid.).
Wieseler shows conclusively that Festus cannot have become procu-
rator before 60 a.d., and hence Paul cannot have been taken to Rome
before the fall of that year.
2 Col. iv. 10.
124
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS:
[II. 22.
And Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles/
brought his history to a close at this point, after
stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome
as a prisoner at large, and preached the
2 word of God without restraint.^ Thus after
he had made his defense it is said that the
apostle was sent again upon the ministry of
preaching,^ and that upon coming to the same
city a second time he suffered martyrdom." In
this imprisonment he wrote his second epistle
to Timothy,* in which he mentions his first
3 defense and his impending death. But hear
his testimony on these matters : " At my
^ See below, Bk. III. chap. 4. 0 gge Acts xxviii. 30.
'' Eiisebius is the first writer to record the release of Paul from a
first, and his martyrdom during a second Roman imprisonment. He
introduces the statement with the formula Aoyos exfi, which indi-
cates probably that he has only an oral tradition as his authority,
and his efforts to establish the fact by exegetical arguments show
how weak the tradition was. Many maintain that Eusebius follows
no tradition here, but records simply his own conclusion formed
from a study of the Pastoral Epistles, which apparently necessitate a
second imprisonment. But were this the case, he would hardly have
used the formula \6yo<; e\€i. The report may have arisen solely
upon exegetical grounds, but it can hardly have originated with
Eusebius himself. In accordance with this tradition, Eusebius, in
his Chron., gives the date of Paul's death as 67 a.d. Jerome {dc
viy. ill. 5) and other later writers follow Eusebius (though Jerome
gives the date as 68 instead of 67), and the tradition soon became
firmly established (see below, chap. 25, note 5). Scholars are greatly
divided as to the fact of a second imprisonment. Nearly all that
defend the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles assume a second
imprisonment, though some (e.g. Wieseler, Ebrard, Reuss and others)
defend the epistles while assuming only one imprisonment; but this
is very difficult. On the other hand, most opponents of the epistles
(e.g. the Tubingen critics and the majority of the new critical school)
deny the second imprisonment. As to the place where Paul spent
the interval — supposing him to have been released — there is again
a difiference of opinion. The Pastoral Epistles, if assumed to be
genuine, seem to necessitate another visit to the Orient. But for
such a visit there is no ancient tradition, although Paul himself, in
the Epistle to the Philippians, expresses his expectation of making
such a visit. On the other hand, there is an old tradition that he
visited Spain (which must of course have been during this interval,
as he did not reach it before the first imprisonment). The Murato-
rian Fragment (from the end of the second century) records this tra-
dition in a way to imply that it was universally known. Clement of
Rome {Epistle to the Corinthiaits, c. 5.) is also claimed as a witness
for such a visit, but the interpretation of his words is doubtful, so
that little weight can be laid upon his statement. In later times the
tradition of this visit to Spain dropped out of the Church. The
strongest argument against the visit is the absence of any trace of
it in Spain itself. If any church there could have claimed the great
apostle to the Gentiles as its founder, it seems that it must have
asserted its claim and the tradition have been preserved at least in
that church. This appears to the writer a fatal argument against
a journey to Spain. On the other hand, the absence of all tradition of
another journey to the Orient does not militate against such a visit,
for tradition at any place might easily preserve the fact of a visit of
the apostle, without preservmg an accurate account of the number
of his visits if more than one were made. Of the defenders of the
Pastoral Epistles, that accept a second imprisonment, some assume
simply a journey to the Orient, others assume also the journey to
Spain. Between the spring of 63 a.d., the time when he was prob-
ably released, if released, and the date of his death (at the earliest
the summer of 64), there is time enough, but barely so, for both
journeys. If the date of Paul's death be put later with Eusebius and
Jerornc (as many modern critics put it), the time is of course quite
sufficient. Compare the various Lives of Paul, Commentaries, etc.,
and especially, among recent works, Schaff's C/ncrch Hist. I.
p. 231 sqq.; Weiss' Eiiileittiiig in lias N. T. p. 283 sqq.; Holtz-
mann's Einlcitiingy p. 295 sqq.; and Weizsacker's Apostolisches
Zeitalter, p. 453 sqq.
' See below, chap. 25, note 6.
8 Eusebius looked upon the Pastoral Epistles as undoubtedly
geriuine, and placed them among the Hoiiiologitmcna, or undisputed
writings (compare Bk. III. chaps. 3 and 25). The external testi-
mony for them is very strong, but their genuineness has, during the
present century, been quite widely denied upon internal grounds.
The advanced critical scholars of Germany treat their non-Pauline
authorship as completely established, and many otlierwisc conserva-
tive scholars follow their le.ad. It is impossible here to give the
various arguments for or against their genuineness; we may refer
the reader particularly to Holtzmann's Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch
und exegetisch behandclt (1880), and to his Eittleituiig (i386),
for the most complete presentation of the case against the genuine-
ness; and to Weiss' Einleituns in das N. T. (i886), p. 286 sqq.,
first answer," he says, " no man stood with me,
but all men forsook me : I pray Ciod that it may
not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding
the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me ;
that by me the preaching might be fully known,
and that all the Gentiles might hear : and I was
delivered out of the mouth of the lion.""
He plainly indicates in these words that 4
on the former occasion, in order that the
preaching might be fulfilled by him, he was
rescued from the mouth of the lion, referring,
in this expression, to Nero, as is probable on
account of the latter's cruelty. He did not
therefore afterward add the similar statement,
" He will rescue me from the mouth of the
lion " ; for he saw in the spirit that his end
would not be long delayed. Wherefore he 5
adds to the words, " And he delivered me
from the mouth of the lion," this sentence :
" The Lord shall deliver me from every evil
work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly
kingdom," ^^ indicating his speedy martyrdom;
which he also foretells still more clearly in the
same epistle, when he writes, " For I am now
ready to be offered, and the time of my
departure is at hanei." " In his second 6
epistle to Timothy, moreover, he indicates
that Luke was with him when he wrote,'- but at
his first defense not even he.'^ Whence it is
probable that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles
at that time, continuing his history down
to the period when he was with Paul.'' But 7
these things have been adduced by us to
show that Paul's martyrdom did not take place
at the time of that Roman sojourn which Luke
and to his Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, in the fifth edition
of the Meyer Series, for a defense of their genuineness, and also to
Woodruff's article in the Andovcr Reinciu, October, 1886, for a
brief and somewhat popular discussion of the subject. The second
epistle must have been written latest of all Paul's epistles, just
before his death, — at the termination of his second captivity, or of
his first, if his second be denied.
" 2 Tim. iv. 16, 17.
1" 2 Tim. iv. 18. '- See 2 Tim. iv. 11.
11 Ibid. iv. 6. '3 See 2 Tim. iv. 16.
'^ This is a very commonly accepted opinion among conservative
commentators, who thus explain the lack of mention of the persecu-
tion of Nero and of the death of Paul. 0\\ the other hand, some
who accept Luke's authorship of the Acts, put the composition into
the latter part of the century and explain the omission of the perse-
cution and the death of Paul from the object of the work, e.g.
Weiss, who dates the Gospel of Luke between 70 and 80, and thus
brings the Acts down to a still later date (see his Eiiileituiig, \i.
585 sqq.). It is now becoming (juite generally admitted that Luke's
Gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and if this be
so, the Acts mtist have been written still later. There is in fact no
reason for supposing the book to have been written at the point of
time at which its account of Paul ceases. The design of the book
(its text is found in the eighth verse of the first chapter) was to
give an account of the progress of the Church from Jerusalem to
Rome, not to write the life of Paul. The record of Paul's death at
the close of the book would have been quite out of harmony with
this design, and would have formed a decided anti-climax, as the
author was wise enough to understand. He was writing, not a life
of Paul, nor of any apostle or group of apostles, but a history of
the planting of the Church of Christ. The advanced critics, who
deny that the Acts were written by a pupil of Paul, of course put its
composition much later, — some into the time of Domitian, most into
the second century. But even such critics admit the genuineness
of certain portions of the book (the celebrated "We" passages),
and the old Tiihingen theory of intentional misrepresentation on the
part of the author is finding less favor even among the most radical
critics.
11.23.] MARTYRDOM OF JAMES, THE LORD'S BROTHER.
125
8 records. It is probable indeed that as Nero
was more disposed to mildness in the be-
ginning, Paul's defense of his doctrine was more
easily received ; but that when he had advanced
to the commission of lawless deeds of daring,
he made the apostles as well as others the subjects
of his attacks.''^
CHAPTER XXIII.
The Alartyrdom of James, who was called the
Brother of the Lord.
1 But after Paul, in consequence of his
appeal to Coesar, had been sent to Rome
by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their
hope of entrapi)ing him by the snares which
they had laid for him, turned against James,
the brother of the Lord,^ to whom the episcopal
seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the
apostles.' The following daring measures
2 were undertaken by them against him. Lead-
ing him into their midst they demanded of
him that he should renounce faith in Christ in
the presence of all the people. But, contrary
to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with
greater boldness than they had anticipated, he
spoke out before the whole multitude and con-
fessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the
Son of God. But they were unable to bear
longer the testimony of the man who, on ac-
count of the excellence of ascetic virtue^ and
of piety which he exhibited in his life, was
esteemed by all as the most just of men, and
consequently they slew him. Opportunity for
this deed of violence was furnished by the pre-
vailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact
that Festus had died just at this time in Judea,
and that the province was thus without a gov-
3 ernor and head.* The manner of James'
death has been already indicated by the
above-quoted words of Clement, who records
that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the
temple, and was beaten to death with a club.^
But Hegesippus,^ who lived immediately after
the apostles, gives the most accurate account in
the fifth book of his Memoirs.'' He writes
4 as follows : " James, the brother of the Lord,
''' Whether Eusebius' conclusion be correct or not, it is a fact
that Nero became much more cruel and tyrannical in the latter part
of his reign. The famous " first five years," however exaggerated
the reports about them, must at least have been of a very different
character from the remainder of his reign. But those five years of
clemency and justice were past before Paul reached Rome.
1 See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.
- See above, chap, i, note 11.
3 (()tAoo-o(#)ias. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.
* See the preceding chapter, note i, and below, note 40.
^ See chap, i, above.
'^ On Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.
" As the Memoirs of Hegesippus consisted of but five books, this
account of James occurred in the last book, and this shows how en-
tirely lacking the work was in all chronological arrangement (cf.
Book IV. chap. 22). This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sac.
I. p. 208 sqq., with a valuable discussion on p. 228 sqq.
succeeded to the government of the Church in
conjunction with the apostles.^ He has been
called the Just ^ by all from the time of our Sav-
iour to the present day ; for there were many
that bore the name of James. He was holy 5
from his mother's womb ; and he drank
no wine nor strong drink, nor did he cat flesh.
No razor came upon his head ; he did not anoint
himself with oil, and he did not use the
bath. He alone was permitted to enter 6
into the holy place ; for he wore not woolen
but linen garments. And he was in the habit of
entering alone into the temple, and was frequently
found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the
people, so that his knees became hard like those
of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bend-
ing them in his worship of God, and ask-
ing forgiveness for the people.^*^ Because 7
of his exceeding great justice he was called
the Just, and Oblias," which signifies in Greek,
'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,'^- in ac-
cordance with what the prophets declare
concerning him.^^ Now some of the seven 8
sects, which existed among the people and
which have been mentioned by me in the Me-
moirs,^* asked him, ' What is the gate of Jesus ? ' ^^
8 juera tkiv a.i!o<no\iav, "with the apostles"; as Rufinus rightly
translates, citm apostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads /(!i/ «;/<?-
stolost " after the apostles," as if the Greek were \xiTa. tou? an-ocrTc-
Aoi;?. This statement of Hegesippus is correct. James was a leader
of the Jerusalem church, in company with Peter and John, as we
see from Gal. ii. 9. But that is quite different from saying, as
Eusebius does just above, and as Clement (quoted by Eusebius,
chap. I, § 3) does, that he was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the
apostles. See chap, i, note 11. '■* See chap, i, note 6.
1" " The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus is an over-
drawn picture from the middle of the second century, colored by
Judaizing traits which may have been derived from the Ascettts of
James, and other Apocryphal sources. He turns James into a
Jewish priest and Nazarite saint (cf. his advice to Paul, Acts xxi.
23, 24), who drank no wine, ate no flesh, never shaved nor took a
bath, and wore only linen. But the Biblical James is Pharisaic and
legalistic, rather than Essenic and ascetic " (Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. p.
268). For Peter's asceticism, see the Clementine Recogititions,
VII. 6; and for Matthew's, see Clement of Alexandria's /"^^^^(t^-kj,
11 'njSAi'as : probably a corruption of the Heb. CIJ /Si^, which
signifies " bulwark of the people." The same name is given to
James by Epiphanius, by Dionysius the Areopagite, and others.
See Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticiis, s.v.
'- rrepto\») tov \aoi Kal SLKaiO(Tvi'r].
13 To what Hegesippus refers I do not know, as there is no
passage in the prophets which can be interpreted in this way. He
may have been thinking of the passage from Isaiah quoted m § 15,
below, but the reference is certainly very much strained.
" See Bk. IV. chap. 22.
1^ For a discussion of this very difficult question, whose inter-
pretation has puzzled all commentators, see Routh HeL Sac. I.
p. 434 sq., and Heinichen's Mel. IV., in his edition of Eusebius, Vol.
III., p. 654 sqq. The explanation given by Grabe (in his Spic.PF.
p. 254) , seems to me the best. According to him, the Jews wish to
ascertain James' opinion in regard to Christ, whether he considers
him a true guide or an impostor, and therefore they ask, " What (of
what sort) is the gate (or the way) of Christ.' Is it a gate which
opens into life (or a way which leads to life) ; or is it a gate which
opens upon death (or a way which leads to death) t " Cf. Matt. vii.
13, 14, where the two ways and the two gates are compared. The
Jews had undoubtedly often heard Christ called " the Way," and
thus they might naturally use the expression in asking James' opin-
ion about Jesus, " Is he the true or the false way.' " or, " Is this way
true or false? " The answer of James which follows is then perfectly
consistent: "He is the Saviour," iu which words he expresses as
decidedly as he can his belief that the way or the gate of Christ led
to salvation. And so below, in § 12, where he gives a second answer
to the question, expressing his belief in Christ still more emphati-
cally. This is somewhat similar to the explanation of Heinichen
{ibid.\i. 659 sq.), who construes the genitive 'IijcroO as in virtual
apposition to Bvpa.: " What is this way, Jesus? " But Grabe seems
to bring out most clearly the true meaning of the question.
126
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. 23.
and he replied that he was the Saviour.
9 On account of these words some beUeved
that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects men-
tioned above did not beheve either in a resur-
rection or in one's coming to give to every
man according to his works.^*^ But as many as
believed did so on account of James.
10 Therefore when many even of the rulers
believed, there was a commotion among
the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said
:hat there was danger that the whole people
would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Com-
ing therefore in a body to James they said, ' We
entreat thee, restrain the people ; for they are
gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the
Christ.^' We entreat thee to persuade all that
have come to the feast of the Passover concern-
ing Jesus ; for we all have confidence in thee.
For we bear thee witness, as do all the people,
that thou art just, and dost not respect per-
il sons.^* Do thou therefore persuade the
multitude not to be led astray concerning
Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also,
have confidence in thee. Stand therefore upon
the pinnacle of the temple,^'-* that from that high
position thou mayest be clearly seen, and that
thy words may be readily heard by all the peo-
ple. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also,
are come together on account of the Pass-
12 over.' The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees
therefore placed James upon the pinnacle
of the temple, and cried out to him and said :
* Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have
confidence, forasmuch as the people are led
astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare
13 to us, what is the gate of Jesus.' -" And he an-
swered with a loud voice, ' Why do ye ask me
'" Rufinus translates non credideriint neqne surrexisse emn,
&c., and he is followed by Fabricius {Cod. Apoc. N'. T. II. p. 603).
This rendering suits the context exxellently, and seems to be the
only rendering which gives any meaning to the following sentence.
And yet, as our Greek stands, it is impossible to translate thus, as
both avaaTaaiv and kpxoixevov are left entirely indefinite. The
Greek runs, ovk cTviaTevov audaTaaiv, oure ip^ofievov airoSoiivaL,
(c.T.A. Cf. the notes of Valesius and of Heinichen on this passage.
Of these seven sects, so far as we know, only one, the Sadducees,
disbelieved in the resurrection from the dead. If Hegesippus' words,
therefore, be understood of a general resurrection, he is certainly in
error.
" This sentence sufficiently reveals the legendary character of
Hegesippus' account. James' position as a Christian must have
been well enough known to prevent such a request being made to
him in good faith (and there is no sign that it was made in any other
spirit) ; and at any rate, after his reply to them already recorded,
such a repetition of the question in public is absurd. Fabricius, who
does not think the account is true, says that, if it is, the Jews seem
to have asked him a second time, thinking that they could either
flatter or frighten him into denying Christ.
»» Cf. Matt. xxii. 16.
'" «7rl TO TrTepvvtov ToO vaov. Some MSS. read toG lepov, and
in the preceding paragraph that phrase occurs, which is identical
with the phrase used in Matt. iv. 5, where the devil places Christ on
a pinnacle of the temple, ifpoj is the general name for the temple
buildings as a whole, while vaos is a specific name for the temple
proper.
*" Some MSS., with Rufinus and the editions of Valesius and
Heinichen, add <rTntipujftei'To?, " who was crucified," and Stroth,
Closs, and Crusfe follow this reading in their translations. But many
of the best MSS. omit the words, as do also Nicephorus, Burton,
Routh, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Stiglohcr, and I prefer to follow
their example, as the words seem to be an addition from the previous
line.
concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself
sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great
Power, and is about to come upon the
clouds of heaven.' -' And when many were 14
fully convinced and gloried in the testimony
of James, and said, ' Hosanna to the Son of
David,' these same Scribes and Pharisees said
again to one another, ' We have done badly in
supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us
go up and throw him down, in order that
they may be afraid to believe him.' And 15
they cried out, saying, * Oh ! oh ! the just
man is also in error.' And they fulfilled the
Scripture written in Isaiah,^- ' Let us take away ^
the just man, because he is troublesome to us :
therefore they shall eat the fruit of their
doings.' So they went up and threw down 16
the just man, and said to each other, ' Let
us stone James the Just.' And they began to
stone him, for he was not killed by the fall ; but
he turned and knelt down and said, ' I entreat
thee. Lord God our Father,-^ forgive them,
for they know not what they do.'-^ And 17
while they were thus stoning him one of
the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the
Rechabites,-" who are mentioned by Jeremiah
the prophet,-'^ cried out, saying, 'Cease, what
do ye? The just one prayeth for you.' ^^
21 Cf. Matt. xxvi. 64 and Mark xiv. 62.
22 Isa. iii. 10. Jess (p. 50) says, " Auch darin ist Hegesipp
nur ein Kind seiner Zeit, dass er in ausgedehntem Masse im Alten
Testamente Weissagungen auffindet. Aber mit Bezug darauf darf
man nicht vergessen, — dass dcrgleicheti 7>iehr orMomche Benut-
zung als exegetische Erklarungen sein soUen." Cf. the writer's
Dialogue between a Christian and a yew {PaJ>iscns and Phiio),
chap. I.
23 dpcofiei'. The LXX, as we have it to-day, reads Briiriafxev , but
Justin Martyr's Dial., chap. 136, reads apui/j-ei' (though in chaps.
17 and 133 it reads 6>;cruj/xc>'). TertuUian also in his AdT. iilarc.
Bk. III. chap. 22, shows that he read apuiixev, for he translates
auferamits.
-^ Kupie 9ec Trarep. 25 Luke xxiii. 34.
2" 'Paxa^eifi, which is simply the reproduction in Greek letters
of the Hebrew plural, and is equivalent to " the Rechabites." But
Hegesippus uses it without any article as if it were the name of an
individual, j;ist as he uses the name 'PT)xaB which immediately pre-
cedes. The Rechabites were a tribe who took their origin from Je-
honadab, the son of Rechab, who appears from i Chron. ii. 55 to
have belonged to a branch of the Kenites, the Arabian tribe which
came into Palestine with the Israelites. Jehonadab enjoined upon
his descendants a nomadic and ascetic mode of life, which they
observed with great strictness for centuries, and received a bless-
ing from God on account of their steadfastness (Jer. xxxv. 19).
That a Rechabite, who did not belong to the tribe of Judah, nor
even to the genuine people of Israel, should have been a priest
seems at first sight inexplicable. Different solutions have been of-
fered. Some think that Hegesippus was mistaken, — the source
from which he took his account having confounded this ascetic
Rechabite with a priest, — but this is hardly probable. Plumptre,
in Smith's Bill. Did. art. Rechabites (which sec for a full account of
the tribe), thinks that the blessing pronounced upon them by God
(Jer. xxxv. jg) included their solemn adoption among the people of
Israel, and their incorporation into the tribe of Levi, and therefore into
the number of the priests. Others (e.g. Tillemont, //. E. I. p. 633)
have supposed that many Jews, including also priests, embraced the
practices and the institutions of the Rechabites and were therefore
identified with them. The language here, however, seems to imply
a native Rechabite, and it is probable that Hegesippus at least be-
lieved this person to be such, whether his belief was correct or not.
See Routh, I. p. 243 sq. 2T gee Jer. xxxv.
"^^ In Epiphanius, Hirr. LXXVIII. 14, these words are put into
the mouth of Simeon, the son of Clopas; from which some have
concluded that Simeon had joined the order of the Rechabites; but
there is no ground for such an assumption. The Simeon of F.pi-
phanius and the Rechabite of Hegesippus are not necessarily identi-
cal. They represent simply varieties of the original account, and
Kpiphanius', as the more exact, was undoubtedly the later tradition,
and an intentional improvement upon the vagueness of the original.
11.23] MARTYRDOM OF JAMES, THE LORD'S BROTHER.
127
18 And one of them, who was a fuller, took
the club with which he beat out clothes and
struck the just man on the head. And thus he
suffered martyrdom."'' And they buried him on
the spot, by the temple, and his monument still
remains by the temple.** He became a true
Avitness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is
the Christ. And immediately Vespasian be-
sieged them.""^
19 These things are related at length by
Hegesippus, who is in agreement with
Clement.^- James was so admirable a man and
so celebrated among all for his justice, that the
more sensible even of the Jews were of the opin-
ion that this was the cause of the siege of Jeru-
salem, which happened to them immediately
after his martyrdom for no other reason than
20 their daring act against him. Josephus, at
least, has not hesitated to testify this in his
writings, where he says,^ "These things hap-
pened to the Jews to avenge James the Just,
who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the
Christ. For the Jews slew him, although
21 he was a most just man." And the same
writer records his death also in the twen-
tieth book of his Antiquities in the following
words : ^ " But the emperor, when he learned
of the death of Festus, sent Albinus''' to be
-" Clement (in chap. 5, § 4, above), who undoubtedly used the
account of Hegesippus as his source, describes the death of James
as taking place in the same way, but omits the stoning which pre-
ceded. Josephus, on the other hand (quoted below), mentions only
the stoning. But Hegesippus' account, which is the fullest that we
have, gives us the means of reconciling the briefer accounts of
Clement and of Josephus, and we have no reason to think either
account incorrect.
■'" Valesius remarks that the monument (o-t^Aij) could not have
stood through the destruction of Jerusalem until the time of Hege-
sippus, nor could James have been buried near the temple, as the
Jews always buried their dead without the city walls. Tillemont
attempted to meet the difificulty by supposing that James was thrown
from a pianacle of the temple overlooking the Valley of Jehoshaphat,
and therefore fell without the walls, where he was stoned and buried,
a:id where his monument could remain undisturbed. Tillemont,
h jwever, afterward withdrew his explanation, which was beset with
difficulties. Others have supposed that the monument mentioned
by Hegesippus was erected after the destruction of Jerusalem (cf.
Jerome, de viy. ill. 2), while his body was buried in another place.
This is quite possible, as Hegesippus must have seen some monu-
ment of James which was reported to have been the original one,
but which must certainly have been of later date. A monument,
which is now commonly known as the tomb of St. James, is shown
upon the east side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and therefore at a
considerable distance from the temple. See Routh, Rel. Sac. I.
p. 246 sqq. •" See below, note 40.
^'- See .above, chap, i, § 4. His agreement with Clement is not
very surprising, inasmuch as the latter probably drew his knowledge
from the account of the former.
•*2 This passage is not found in our existing MSS. of Josephus,
but is given by Origen {Contra Celsiim, I. 47), which shows at any
rate that Eusebius did not invent the words. It is probable there-
fore, that the copies of Josephus used by Origen and Eusebius con-
tained this interpolation, while the copies from which our existing
MSS. drew were without it. It is of course possible, especially since
he does not mention the reference in Josephus, that Eusebius quoted
these words from Origen. But this does not help matters any, as
it stiU remains as difficult to account for the occurrence of the words
in Origin, and even if Eusebius did take the passage from Origen
instead of from Josephus himself, we still have no right with Jach-
mann (/3. p. 40) to accuse him of wilful deception. For with his great
confidence in Origen, and his unbounded admiration for him, and
with his naturally uncritical spirit, he would readily accept as true
in all good faith a quotation given by Origen and purporting to be
taken from Josephus, even though he could not find it in his own
copy of the latter's works. ^* Ant. XX. g. i.
^■' Albinus succeeded Festus in 61 or 62 a.d. He was a very
corrupt governor and was in turn succeeded by Gessius Florus iji
64 A.D. See Wieseler, Cliroti. d. Ap. Zeitaliers, p. 89.
procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus,'""
who, as we have already said,''^ had obtained the
high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and
reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover,
to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most
cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judg-
ment, as we have already shown.'^'^ Ananus, 22
therefore, being of this character, and sup-
posing that he had a favorable opportunity on
account of the fact that Festus was dead, and
Albinus was still on the way, called together the
Sanhedrim, and brought before them the brother
of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name,
together with some others,''^'-' and accused them
of violating the law, and condemned them
to be stoned.* But those in the city who 23
seemed most moderate and skilled in the law
were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the
king,*^ requesting him to order Ananus to cease
such proceedings. For he had not done right
even this first time. And certain of them also
went to meet Albinus, who was journeying from
Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not
lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim
without his knowledge.'*- And Albinus, being 24
*' Ananus was the fifth son of the high priest Annas mentioned
in the N. T. His father and his four brothers had been high priests
before him, as Josephus tells us in this same par.agraph. He was
appointed high priest by Agrippa II. in 6i or 62 a.d., and held the
oflice but three months.
'■^' Ananus' accession is recorded by Josephus in a sentence imme-
diately preceding, which Eusebius, who abridges Josephus' account
somewhat, has omitted in this quotation.
■"* I can find no previous mention in Josephus of the hardness of
the Sadducees; but see Reland's note upon this passage in Josephus.
It may be that we have lost a part of the account of the Sadducees
and Pharisees.
3''' KtLi TTapayayuiV et? avTO [rbr d6eA</)bi' 'Ir^aou ToO \pi<rTOV
\eyoixivov,'laKtii^o^ ovojiia auToJ, Kai] Tira? [erepov?], k.t.A. Some
critics regard the bracketed words as spurious, but Neander, Gesch.
der PJlanzitng iiiui Leitting dcr Christlichen Kirclte, 5th ed.,
p. 445, note, contends for their genuineness, and this is now the
common opinion of critics. It is in fact very difficult to suppose
that a Christian in interpolating the passage, would have referred to
James as the brother of the " so-called Christ." On the other hand,
as the words stand there is no good reason to doubt their genuineness.
^" The date of the martyrdom of James, given here by Josephus,
is 61 or 62 A.D. (at the time of the Passover, according to Hegesippus,
§ 10, above). There is no reason for doubting this date which is
given with such exactness by Josephus, and it is further confirmed
by Eusebius in his Chroti.,vi'ho puts James's martyrdom in the sev-
enth year of Nero, i.e. 61 a.d., while Jerome puts it in the eighth
year of Nero. The Clementines and the Chronicon Pascliale,
which state that James survived Peter, and are therefore cited in
support of a later date, are too late to be of any weight over against
such an exact statement as that of Josephus, especially since Peter
and James died at such a distance from one another. Hegesippus
has been cited over and over again by historians as assigning the
date of the martyrdom to 69 a.d., and as thus being in direct conflict
with Josephus; as a consequence some follow his supposed date,
others that of Josephus. But I can find no reason for asserting that
Hegesippus assigns the martyrdom to 69. Certainly his words in
this chapter, which are referred to, by no means necessitate such an
assumption. He concludes his account with the words xal eu8i>s
OvetTTratriai'bs TroAtopxei avTou?. The TroAiopxei ai'TOiis is certainly
to be referred to the commencement of the war (not to the siege of
the city of Jerusalem, which was undertaken by Titus, not by \'es-
pasian), i.e. to the year 67 a.d., and in such an account as this, in
which the overthrow of the Jews is designedly presented in connec-
tion with the death of James, it is hyper-criticism to insist that the
word ei/flus must indicate a space of time of only a few months
duration. It is a very indefinite word, and the most we can draw
from Hegesippus' account is that not long before Vespasian's inva-
sion of Judea, James was slain. The same may be said m regard to
Eusebius- report in Bk. III. chap. 11, § i, which certanily is not
definite enough to be cited as a contradiction of his express state-
ment in his Chronicle. But however it may be with this report
and that of Hegesippus, the date given by Josephus is undoubtedly
to be accepted as correct. *^ Agrippa II.
128
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. 23.
persuaded by their representations, wrote in anger
to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And
the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him
of the high priesthood,'*" which he had held three
months, and appointed Jesus, the son of
25 Damnaeus." ■" These things are recorded
in regard to James, who is said to be the
author of the first of the so-called catholic ^^ epis-
tles. But it is to be observed that it is dis-
puted ; ^ at least, not many of the ancients have
mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the
epistle that bears the name of Jude,^' which is
Spiov. Jost reads eiceu'ov (referring to Agrippa) instead of avroO
(referring to Albinus), and consequently draws the conclusion that
the Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of Agrippa, and
that therefore Ananus had acted contrary to the rights of Agrippa,
but not contrary to the rights of Albinus. But the reading auToO is
supported by overwhelming MS. authority, and must be regarded as
undoubtedly correct. Jost's conclusion, therefore, which his accept-
ance of the txeccou forced upon him, is quite incorrect. The pas-
sage appears to imply that the Sanhedrim could be called only with
the consent of the procurator, and it has been so interpreted; but as
Schiirer points out (Cfsc/i. dcr Jitdcii ini Zeitalter Jesti Christ/,
p. i6g sq.), this conclusion is incorrect, and all that the passage im-
plies is that the Sanhedrim could not hold a sovereign process, that
is, could not meet for the purpose of passing sentence of death and
executing the sentence, during the absence or without the consent of
the procurator. For the transaction of ordinary business the con-
sent of the procurator was not necessary. Compare the Commenta-
ries on John xviii. 31, and the remarks of Schiirer in the passage
referred to above.
^ Agrippa, as remarked above, chap. 19, note 4, exercised gov-
ernment over the temple, and enjoyed the power of appointing and
removing the high priests.
^ Of Jesus, the son of Damnseus, nothing further is known. He
was succeeded, while Albinus was still procurator, by Jesus, the son
of Gamaliel {Ant. XX. 9. 4).
■"' This term was applied to all or a part of these seven epistles
by the Alexandrian Clement, Origen, and Dionysius, and since the
time of Eusebius has been the common designation. The word is
used in the sense of " general," to denote that the epistles are encyc-
lical letters addressed to no particular persons or congregations,
though this is not true of II. and III. John, which, however, are
classed with the others on account of their supposed Johannine
authorship, and consequent close connection with his first epistle.
The word was not first used, as some have held, in the sense of
" canonical," to denote the catholic or general acceptance of the
epistle, — a meaning which Eusebius contradicts in this very pas-
sage, and which the history of the epistles themselves (five of the
seven being among the antilegomena) sufficiently refutes. See
Holtzmann's Eznleitimg, p. 472 sqq., and Weiss, ibid. p. 8g sqq.
■•" voSeverai. It is common to translate the word I'oSo?, " spuri-
ous" (and the kindred verb, "to be spurious"); but it is plain
enough from this passage, as also from others, that Eusebius did not
employ the word in that sense. He commonly used it, in fact, in a
loose way, to mean " disputed," in the same sense in which he often
employed the word oi'TiAfyofxeio?. Liicke, indeed, maintained that
Eusebius always used the words v66o<; and ai'TiAeyofxeros as synony-
mous; but in Bk. III. chap. 25, as pointed out in note i on that
chapter, he employed the words as respective designations of two
distinct classes of books.
The Epistle of James is classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap.
25) among the antilegomena. The ancient testimonies for its au-
thenticity are very few. It was used by no one, except Hermas,
down to the end of the second century. Irenaeus seems to have
known the epistle (his works exhibit some apparent reminiscences
of it), but he nowhere directly cites it. The Muratorian Fragment
omits it, but the Syriac Peshito contains it, and Clement of Alexan-
dria shows a few faint reminiscences of it in his extant works, and
according to Eusebius, VI. 14, wrote commentaries upon " Jude
and the other catholic epistles." It is quoted frequently by Origen,
who first connects it with the " Brother of the Lord," but does not
express himself with decision as to its authenticity. From his time
on it was commonly accepted as the work of "James, the Lord's
brother." Eusebius throws it among the antilegomena; not neces-
sarily because he considered it unauthentic, but because the early
testimonies for it are too few to raise it to the dignity of one of the
homologoumena (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note i). Luther rejected
the epistle upon purely dogmatic grounds. The advanced critical
school are unanimous in considering it a post-apostolic work, and
many conservative scholars agree with them. See Holtzmann's
Eiyileitung, p. 475 sqq., and Weiss' Kitilcitiing, p. 396 sqq. The
latter defends its authenticity (i.e. the authorship of James, the
brother of the Lord), and, in agreement with many other scholars of
conservative tendencies, throws its origin back into the early part of
the fifties.
■•" The authenticity of the Epistle of Jude (also classed among
also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles.
Nevertheless we know that these also,*^ with the
rest, have been read publicly in very many
churches.''^
CHAPTER XXIV.
Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of
Alexandria after Mark.
When Nero was in the eighth year of his
reign,^ Annianus ^ succeeded Mark the evangelist
in the administration of the parish of Alexan-
dria.^
CHAPTER XXV.
The Persecution under Nero in 7vhich Paul and
Peter were honoi-ed at Rome with Martyrdo77i
in Behalf of Religion.
When the government of Nero was now 1
firmly established, he began to plunge into
unholy pursuits, and armed himself even against
the religion of the God of the universe.
To describe the greatness of his depravity 2
does not lie within the plan of the present
work. As there are many indeed that have
recorded his history in most accurate narratives,^
every one may at his pleasure learn from them
the coarseness of the man's extraordinary mad-
ness, under the influence of which, after he
had accomplished the destruction of so many
myriads without any reason, he ran into such
blood-guiltiness that he did not spare even his
nearest relatives and dearest friends, but de-
stroyed his mother and his brothers and his
wife,^ with very many others of his own family,
the antilegomena by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 25) is about as
well supported as that of the Epistle of James. The Pcshilo does
not contain it, and the Syrian Church in general rejected it for .t
number of centuries. The Muratorian Fragment accepts it, and
TertuUian evidently considered it a work of Jude, the apostle (see
De Cultu Foil. I. 3). The first to quote from it is Clement of
Alexandria, who wrote a commentary upon it in connection with
the other catholic epistles, according to Eusebius, VI. 14. i. Origen
looked upon it much as he looked upon the Epistle of James, but
did not make the "Jude, the brother of James," one of the twelve
apostles. Eusebius treats it as he does James, and Luther, followed
by many modern conservative scholars (among them Neander),
rejects it. Its defenders commonly ascribe it to Jude, the brother of
the Lord, in distinction from Jude the apostle, and put its composi-
tion before the destruction of Jerusalem. The advanced critical
school unanimously deny its authenticity, and most of them throw
its composition into the second century, although some put it back
into the latter part of the first. See Holtzmann, p. 501.
■"* On the Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, notes i and 2.
On the Epistles of John, see ibid. chap. 44, notes 18 and 19.
^■' el' TrAeiVrat? cKKATjfftat?.
1 62 A.D. With this agrees Jerome's version of the Chron.,
while the Armenian version gives the seventh year of Nero.
2 Annianus, according to Bk. III. chap. 14, below, held his office
twenty-two years. In Af>ost. Const. VII. 46 he is said to have been
ordained by Mark as the first bishop of Alexandria. The Chron.
Orient. 89 (according to Westcott in the Diet, of Christ, /h'oj;:)
reports that he was appointed by Mark after he had performed a
miracle upon him. He is commemorated in the Roman martyr-
ology with St. Mark, on April 25.
^ Upon Mark's connection with Egypt, see above, chap. 16,
note I.
1 Tacitus {Ann. XIII.-XVL), Suetonius {Nero), and Dion
Cassius (l-XL-LXIIL).
- Nero's mother, Agrippina the younger, daughter of Germani-
II. 25.]
MARTYRDOM OF PAUL AND PETER.
129
as he would private and public enemies,
3 with various kinds of deaths. But with
all these things this particular in the cat-
alogue of his crimes was still wanting, that he
was the first of the emperors who showed
himself an enemy of the divine religion.
4 The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness
of this. He writes as follows : ^ " Examine
your records. There you will find that Nero
was the first that persecuted this doctrine,*
particularly then when after subduing all the
east, he exercised his cruelty against all at
Rome.^ We glory in having such a man the
leader in our punishment. For whoever knows
him can understand that nothing was con-
demned by Nero unless it was something
5 of great excellence." Thus publicly an-
nouncing himself as the first among God's
chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of
the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that
Paul was beheaded in Rome itself,*' and that
cus and of Agrippina the elder, was assassinated at Nero's command
in 60 A.D. in her villa on Lake Lucrine, after an unsuccessful attempt
to drown her in a boat so constructed as to break to pieces while she
was sailing in it on the lake. His younger brother Britannicus was
poisoned by his order at a banquet m 55 a.d. His first wife Octavia
was divorced in order thit he might marry Poppa;a, the wife of hi^
friend Otho, and was afterward put to death. Poppaia herself died
from the effects of a kick given her by Nero while she was with
child. 3 Tertullian, A/>o^. V.
^ We learn from Tacitus, Ann. XV. 39, that Nero was suspected
to be the author of the great Roman conflagration, which took place
in 64 A.D. (Pliny, //. N. XVII. i, Suetonius, 38, and Dion Cassius,
LXII. iS, state directly that he was the author of it), and that to
avert this suspicion from himself he accused the Christians of the
deed, and the terrible Neronian persecution which Tacitus describes
so fully was the result. Gibbon, and in recent times especially Schil-
ler {Grsckichie der Romisc/ien Kaiserzcit iintcr der Regieritiig
des Nero, p. 584 sqq.), have maintained that Tacitus was mistaken
in calling this a persecution of Christians, which was rather a perse-
cution of the Jews as a whole. But we have no reason for impeach-
ing Tacitus' accuracy in this case, especially since we remember
that the Jews enjoyed favor with Nero through his wife Poppaea.
What is very significant, Josephus is entirely silent in regard to a
persecution of his countrymen under Nero. We may assume as
prob.ible (with Ewald and Renan) that it was through the sugges-
tion of the Jews that Nero's attention was drawn to the Christians,
and he was led to thro*v the guilt upon them, as a people whose
habits would best give countenance to such a suspicion, and most
easily excite the rage of the populace against them. This was not
a persecution of the Christians in the strict sense, that is, it was not
aimed against their religion as such; and yet it assumed such pro-
portions and was attended with such horrors that it always lived in
the memory of the Church as the first and one of the most awful of
a long line of persecutions instituted against them by imperial Rome,
and it revealed to them the essential conflict which existed between
Rome as it then was and Christianity.
■^ The Greek translator of TertuUian's Apology, whoever he may
have been (certainly not Eusebius himself; see chap. 2, note 9,
above), being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxiiiie, has made
very bad work of this sentence, and has utterly destroyed the sense
of the original, which runs as follows: iilic reperictis pritmtm
Neronem in hanc si'ctain cum ma.n'me Roime orientem Ctrsa-
riano gladio fcrocisse (" There you will find that Nero was the
first to assail with the imperial sword the Christian sect, which was
then especially flourishing in Rome"). The Greek translation
reads: e/cei ei/prjcreTe ffpciroi' iSepiofa toi)to to 5o-)^jjia, >)vt/ca juaAtcrra
kv 'Pujjarj Tr\v dt'aToArji' Tracraf VTTora^a? (oju-u^ 'f\v et? TrafTa?, 6110-
foi'Ta, in the rendering of which I have followed Cruse, who has re-
produced the idea of the Greek translator with as much fidelity as
the sentence will allow. The German translators, Stroth and Closs,
render the sentence directly from the original Latin, and thus pre-
serve the meaning of Tertullian, which is, of course, what the Greek
translator intended to reproduce. I have not, however, felt at lib-
erty in the present case to follow their example.
'' This tradition, that Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome, is early
and universal, and disputed by no counter-tradition, and may be
accepted as the one certain historical fact known about Paul outside
of the New Testament accounts. Clement i^Ad. Cor. chap. 5) is the
first to mention the death of Paul, and seems to imply, though he
does not directly state, that his death took place in Rome during
the persecution of Nero. Caius (quoted below, § 7), a writer of
VOL. \. K
Peter likewise was crucified under Nero.^ This
account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the
fact that their names are preserved in the ceme-
teries of that place even to the present
day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius,^ 6
the first quarter of the third century, is another witness to his death
in Rome, as is also Dionysius of Corinth (quoted below, § 8) of the
second century. Origen (quoted by Euseb. HI. i) states that he
was martyred in Rome under Nero. Tertullian (at the end of the
second century), in his De prcescriptione Hoer. chap. 36, is still
more distinct, recording that Paul was beheaded in Rome. Euse-
bius and Jerome accept this tradition unhesitatingly, and we may
do likewise. As a Roman citizen, we should expect him to meet
death by the sword.
' The tradition that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome is as old
and as univers.al as that in regard to Paul, but owing to a great
amount of falsehood which became mixed with the original tradition
by the end of the second century the whole has been rejected as
untrue by some modern critics, who go so far as to deny that Peter
was ever at Rome. (See especially Lipsius' Die Qiicllen der
rihiiisclieii Petriis-Sage, Kiel, 1872; a summary of his view is given
by Jackson in the Presbyteriaji Quarterly and Princeton Review,
1876, p. 265 sq. In Lipsius' latest work upon this subject^ Die
Acta Pauli nnd Petri, 1887, he makes important concessions.)
The tradition is, however, too strong to be set aside, and there is
absolutely no trace of any conflicting tradition. We may therefore
assume it as overwhelmingly probable that Peter was in Rome and
suffered martyrdom there. His martyrdom is plainly referred to in
John xxi. 10, though the place of it is not given. The first extra-
biblical witness to it is Clement of Rome. He also leaves the place
of the martyrdom unspecified (^Ad Cor. 5), but he evidently as-
sumes the place as well known, and indeed it is impossible that the
early Church could have known of the death of Peter and Paul
without knowing where they died, and there is in neither case a
single opposing tradition. Ignatius {Ad Rom. chap. 4) connects
Paul and Peter in an especial way with the Roman Church, which
seems plainly to imply that Peter had been in Rome. Phlegon
(supposed to be the Emperor Hadrian writing under the name of a
favorite slave) is said by Origen {Contra Celsnm, II. 14) to have
confused Jesus and Peter in his Chronicles. This is very signifi-
cant as implying that Peter must have been well known in Rome.
Dionysius, quoted below, distinctly states that Peter labored in
Rome, and Caius is a witness for it. So Irenseus, Clement, Tertul-
lian, and later Fathers without a dissenting voice. The first to men-
tion Peter's death by crucifixion (unless John xxi. 18 be supposed
to imply it) is Tertullian {De Prtpscrip. Hcer. chap. 36), but he
mentions it as a fact already known, and tradition since his time is
so unanimous in regard to it that we may consider it in the highest
degree probable. On the tradition reported by Origen, that Peter
was crucified head downward, see below, Bk. III. chap, i, where
Origen is quoted by Eusebius.
* The history of Caius is veiled in obscurity. All that we know
of him is that he was a very learned ecclesiastical writer, who at
the beginning of the third century held a disputation with Proclus in
Rome (cf. Bk. VI. chap. 20, below). The accounts of him given
by Jerome, Theodoret, and Nicephorus are drawn from Eusebius
and furnish us no new data. Photius, however {Bibl. XLVIIL),
reports that Caius was said to have been a presbyter of the Roman
Church during the episcopates of Victor and Zephyrinus, and to
have been elected " Bishop of the Gentiles," and hence he is com-
monly spoken of as a presbyter of the Roman Church, though the
tradition rests certainly upon a very slender foundation, as Photius
lived some six hundred years after Caius, and is the first to mention
the fact. Photius also, although with hesitation, ascribes to Caius a
work On the Cause 0/ the Universe, and one called The Laby-
rinth, and another Against the Heresy of Artemon (see below,
Bk. V. chap. 28, note i). The first of these (and by some ihe
last also), is now commonly ascribed to Hippolytus. Though the
second may have been written by Caius it is no longer extant, and
hence all that we have of his writings are the fragments of the
Dialogue 7uith Proclus preserved by Eusebius in this chapter and
in Bk. III. chaps. 28, 31. The absence of any notice of the personal
activity of so distinguished a writer has led some critics (e.g. Salmon
in Smith and Wace, I. p. 386, who refers to Lightfoot, Journal of
Philology, I. 98, as holding the same view) to assume the identity
of Caius and Hippolytus, supposing that Hippolytus in the Dia-
logue with Proclus styled himself simply by his praenomen Caius,
and that thus as the book fell into the hands of strangers the tradi-
tion arose of a writer Caius who in reality never had a separate exist-
ence. This theory is ingenious, and in many respects plausible, and
certainly cannot be disproved (owing chiefly to our lack of knowledge
about Caius) , and yet in the absence of any proof that Hippolytus ac-
tually bore the praenomen Caius it can be regarded as no more than a
bare hypothesis. The two are distinguished by Eusebius and by all
the writers who mention them. On Caius' attitude toward the Apoc-
alypse, see Bk. III. chap. 28, note 4; and on his opinion in regard
to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. VI. chap.
20, and Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. The fragments of Caius (includ-
ing fragments from the Little Labyrinth, mentioned above) are
given with annotations in Routh's Rel. Sacm, II. 125-158, and in
translation (with the addition of the Muratorian Fraglflent, wrongly
ascribed to Caius by its discoverer) in Xhc Ante-i\licene Fathers ,
I30
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IL 25.
a member of the Church,^ who arose ^" under
Zephyrimis," bishop of Rome. He, in a pub-
lished disputation with Proclus,^- the leader of
the Phrygian heresy/^ speaks as follows con-
cerning the places where the sacred corpses
7 of the aforesaid apostles are laid : " But "
I can show the trophies of the apostles.
For if you will go to the Vatican ^■' or to the
Ostian way/" you will find the trophies of those
who laid the foundations of this church." ^"
8 And that they both suffered martyrdom
at the same time is stated by Dionysius,
bishop of Corinth,'** in his epistle to the Ro-
mans,'^ in the following words : " You have thus
by such an admonition bound together the
planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and
Corinth. For both of them planted and like-
wise taught us in our Corinth."" And they
V. 599-604. See also the article of Salmon in Smith and Wace, of
Harnack, in Herzog (2d ed.), and Schaff' s C/i. Hist. II. p. 775 sqq.
"^ ycyoi'tus. Cruse translates "born"; but Eusebius cannot
have meant that, for in Bk. VI. chap. 20 he tells us that Caius' dis-
putation with Proclus was held during the episcopate of Zephyrinus.
He used yeyouuK;, therefore, as to indicate that at that time he came
into public notice, as we use the word " arose."
'' On Zephyrinus, see below, Bk. V. chap. 28, § 7.
'- This Proclus probably introduced Montanism into Rome at
the beginning of the third century. According to Pseudo-Tertullian
(Aifv. ODiiit's Hier. chap. 7) he was a leader of one division of the
Montanists, the other division being composed of followers of j^s-
chines. He is probably to be identified with the Procitlits piaster,
classed by Tertullian, in Adv. I'al. chap. 5, with Justin Martyr,
Miltiades, and Irena;us as a successful opponent of heresy.
" The sect of the Montanists. Called the " Phrygian heresy,"
from the fact that it took its rise in Phrygia. Upon Montanism,
see below, Bk. IV. chap. 27, and especially Bk. V. chap. 16 sqq.
'* The St- here makes it probable that Caius, in reply to certain
claims of Proclus, was asserting over against him the ability of the
Roman church to exhibit the true trophies of the greatest of all the
apostles. And what these claims of Proclus were can perhaps be
gathered from his words, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 31,
§ 4, in which Philip and his daughters are said to have been buried
in Hierapolis. That these two sentences were closely connected in
the original is quite possible.
i" According to an ancient tradition, Peter was crucified upon the
hill of Janiculum, near the Vatican, where the Church of San Pietro
in Montorio now stands, and the hole in which his cross stood is
still shown to the trustful visitor. A more probable tradition makes
the scene of execution the Vatican hill, where Nero's circus was,
and where the persecution took place. Baronius makes the whole
ridge on the right bank of the Tiber one hill, and thus reconciles
the two traditions. In the fourth century the remains of Peter were
transferred from the Catacombs of San Sebastiano (where they are
said to have been interred in 258 A.D.) to the Basilica of St. Peter,
which occupied the sight of the present basilica on the Vatican.
'° Paul was beheaded, according to tradition, on the Ostian way,
at the spot now occupied by the Abbey of the Three Fountains.
The fountains, which are said to have sprung up at the spots where
Paul's head struck the ground three times after the decapitation, are
still shown, as also the pillar to which he is supposed to have been
bound! In the fourth century, at the same time that Peter's remains
were transferred to the Vatican, Paul's remains are said to have been
buried in the Basilica of St. Paul, which occupied the site now marked
by the church of San Paolo fuori le mura. There is nothing im-
probable in the traditions as to the spot where Paul and Peter met
their death. They are as old as the second century; and while they
cannot be accepted as indisputably true (since there is always a ten-
dency to fix the deathplace of a great man even if it is not known),
yet on the other hand if Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome,
It is hardly possible that the place of their death and burial could
have been forgotten by the Roman church itself within a century
and a half.
" Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman church in the
strict sense, for there was a congregation of believers there even
before Paul came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows,
and Peter cannot h.ave reached there until some time after Paul.
It was, however, a very early fiction that Paul and Peter together
founded the church in that city.
•* On Dionysius of Corinth, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 23.
'*' Another quotation from this epistle is given in Bk. IV. chap.
23. The fragments are discussed by Routh, Ki-i. .^ac. I. 179 sq.
2" Wliatever may be the truth of Dionysius' report as to Peter's
taught together in like manner in Italy, and suf-
fered martyrdom at the same time." -' I have
quoted these things in order that the truth of
the history might be still more confirmed.
CHAPTER XXVI.
77/1? Jews, afflicted luitli Iinunncrablc Fa'Us,
commenced the Last War against the dvomans.
JosEPHus again, after relating many things 1
in connection with the calamity which came
upon the whole Jewish nation, records,^ in addi-
tion to many other circumstances, that a great
many " of the most honorable among the Jews
were scourged in Jerusalem itself and then
crucified by Florus.^ It happened that he
was procurator of Judea when the war began
to be kindled, in the twelfth year of Nero.*
martyrdom at Rome, he is almost certainly in error in speaking as
he does of Peter's work in Corinth. It is difficult, to be sure, to dis-
pose of so direct and early a tradition, but it is still more diflicult to
accept it. The statement that Paul and Peter together planted the
Corinthian church is certainly an error, as we know that it was
Paul's own church, founded by him alone. The so-called Cephas
party, mentioned in i Cor. i., is perhaps easiest explained by the
previous presence and activity of Peter in Corinth, but this is by no
means necessary, and the absence of any reference to the fact in the
two epistles of Paul renders it almost absolutely impossible. It is
barely possible, though by no means probable, that Peter visited
Corinth on his way to Rome (assuming the Roman journey) and
that thus, although the church had already been founded many
years, he became connected in tradition with its early days, and
finally with its origination. But it is more probable that the tradi-
tion is wholly in error and arose, as Neander suggests, partly from
the mention of Peter in i Cor. i., partly from the natural desire to
ascribe the origin of this great apostolic church to the two leading
apostles, to whom in like manner the founding of the Roman church
was ascribed. It is significant that this tradition is recorded only
by a Corinthian, who of course had every inducement to accept
such a report, and to repeat it in comparing his own church with
the central church of Christendom. We find no mention of the
tradition in later writers, so far as I am aware.
-1 Kara Toi' avTov Kaipov. The Kara, allows some margin in
time and does not necessarily imply the same day. Dionysius is
the first one to connect the deaths of Peter and Paul chronologically,
but later it became quite the custom. One tradition put their deaths
on the same day, one year apart (Augustine and Prudentius, e.g., are
said to support this tradition). Jerome {lie vir. ill. i) is the first
to state explicitly that they suffered on the same day. Eusebius in
his Chrou. (Armen.) puts their martyrdom in 67, Jerome in 68.
The Roman Catholic Church celebrates the death of Peter on the
29th and that of Paul on the 30th of June, but has no fixed tradition
as to the year of the death of either of them.
1 Josephus, B. J. II. 14. 9. He relates that Florus, in order to
shield himself from the consequences of his misrule and of his abomi-
nable extortions, endeavored to inflame the Jews to rebel against
Rome by acting still more cruelly toward them. As a result many
disturbances broke out, and many biiter things were said against
Florus, in consequence of which he proceeded to the severe measures
referred to here by Eusebius.
* ixvpiov; oo-oi;?. Josephus gives the whole number of those
that were destroyed, including women and children, as about
thirty-six hundred (no doubt a gross exaggeration, like most of his
figures). He does not state the number of noble Jews whom Florus
whipped and crucified. The " myriads " of Eusebius is an instance
of the exaggerated use of language which was common to his age,
and which almost invariably marks a period of decline. In many
cases " myriads " meant to Eusebius and his contemporaries twenty,
or thirty, or even less. Any number that seemed large under the
circumstances was called a " myriad."
^ Gessius Florus was a Greek whose wife, Cleopatra, was a friend
of the Empress Popp.nea, through whose influence he obtained his
appointment (Jos. A>ii. XX. 11. 1). He succeeded Albinus in 64
A.D. (.see above, chap. 23, note 35), and was universally hated as
the most corrupt and unprincipled governor Judea had ever endured.
Josephus {/i. y. II. 14. 2 sqq. and Ani. XX. 11. i) paints him in
very black colors.
* Josephus (/^. y. II. 14. 4) puts the beginning of the war in the
twelfth year of the reign of Nero (i.e. A.u. 66) in the month of
Artemision, corresponding to the montli lyar, the second inoiiih of
II. 26.]
BEGINNING OF THE JEWISH WAR.
131
2 Josephus says ■' that at that time a terrible
commotion was stirred up throughout all
Syria in consequence of the revolt of the Jews,
and that everywhere the latter were destroyed
without mercy, like enemies, by the inhabitants
of the cities, " so that one could see cities filled
the Jewish year. According to Josephus (Attt, XX. 11. i) this
was in the second year of Gessiiis F'.orus. The war began at this
time by repeated rebellious outbre.iks among tlie Jews, who had
been driven to desperation by the unprincipled and tyrannical con-
duct of Florus, — though Vespasian himself did not appear in Pales-
tine until the spring of 67, when he began his operations in Galilee.
i- Jos. B. 7. ll.^S. 2.
with unburicd corpses, and the dead bodies of
the aged scattered about with the bodies of in-
fants, and women without even a covering for
their nakedness, and the whole province full of
indescribable calamities, while the dread of those
things that were threatened was greater than the
sufferings themselves which they anywhere en-
dured." " Such is the account of Josephus ; and
such was the condition of the Jews at that
time.
K 2
BOOK III.
CHAPTER I.
The Paris of the World in which the Apostles
preached Christ.
1 Such was the condition of the Jews.
Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples
of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the
world. ^ Parthia,^ according to tradition, was
allotted to Thomas as his field of labor, Scythia '■^
to Andrew,* and Asia ^ to John,*' who, after he
* According to Lipsiiis, the legends concerning the labors of
the apostles in various countries were all originally connected with
that of their separation at Jerusalem, which is as old as the second
century. But this separation was put at various dates by different
traditions, varying from immediately after the Ascension to twenty-
four years later. A lost book, referred to by the Dccretitm Gelasii
as Liber quiappellaius sortes Afostolorum apocryphus, very likely
contained the original tradition, and an account of the fate of theapos-
tles, and was probably of Gnostic or Manichean origin. The efforts
to derive from the varying traditions any trustworthy particulars as
to the apostles themselves is almost wholly vain. The various tradi-
tions not only assign different fields of labor to the different apostles,
but also give different lists of the apostles themselves. See Lipsius'
article on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Smith and Wace's
Diet, of Christ. Biog. I. p. 17 sqq. The extant Apocryphal Gos-
pels, Acts, Apocalypses, &c., are translated in the Antc-Niceiie
Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 361 sqq. Lipsius states that, according to
the oldest form of the tradition, the apostles were divided into three
groups: first, Peter and Andrew, Matthew and Bartholomew, who
were said to have preached in the region of the Black Sea; second,
Thomas, Thaddeus, and Simeon, the Canaanite, in Parthia; third,
John and Philip, in Asia Minor.
2 Parthia, in the time of the apostles, was an independent king-
dom, extending from the Indus to the Tigris, and from the Caspian
Sea to the Persian Gulf. This is the oldest form of the tradition in
regard to Thomas (see preceding note). It is found also in the
Clementine Recognitions, IX. 29, and in Socrates, H. E. I. 19.
Rufinus {H. E. II. 5) and Socrates (//. E. IV. 18) speak of Edessa
as his burial place. Later traditions extended his labors eastward
as far as India, and made him suffer martyrdom in that land; and
there his remains were exhibited down to the sixteenth century.
According to the Martyrimn Roviainim, however, his remains
were brought from India to Edessa, and from thence to Ortona, in
Italy, during the Crusades. The Syrian Christians in India called
themselves Thomas-Christians; but the name cannot be traced be-
yond the eighth century, and is derived, probably, from a Nestorian
missionary.
3 The name Scythia was commonly used by the ancients, in a
very loose sense, to denote all the region lying north of the Cas-
pian and Black Seas. But two Scythias were distinguished in more
accurate usage: a European Scythia, lying north of the Black Sea,
between the Danube and the Tanais, and an Asiatic Scythia, extend-
ing eastward from the Ural. The former is here meant.
♦ The traditions respecting Andrew are very uncertain and con-
tradictory, tliough, as remarked above (note i), the original form,
represented here, assigned as his field the region in the neighborhood
of the Black Sea. His traditional activity in Scythia has made him
the patron saint of Russia. He is also called the patron saint of
Greece, where he is reported to have been crucified; but his activity
there rests upon a late tradition. His body is said to have been car-
ried to Constantinople in 357 (cf. Philostorgius, Hist. Redes. III.
2), and during the Crusades transferred to Amalpa; in Italy, in
whose cathedral the remaiiis are still shown. Andrew is in adilition
the patron saint of Scotland; but the tradition of his activity there
dates back only to the eighth century (cf. Skene's Celtic .Scot-
land, II. 221 sq.). Numerous other regions arc claimed, by various
traditions, to have been the scene of his labors.
' Proconsular Asia included only a narrow strip of A' ia Minor,
lying upon the coast of the Mediterranean, and comprising Mysia,
Lydia, and Caria.
had lived some time there,' died at Ephe-
sus. Peter appears to have preached * in 2
Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and
Asia^ to the Jews of the dispersion. And at
last, having come to Rome, he was crucified
head-downwards ; ^° for he had requested that he
might sufter in this way. What do we need to
say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel
of Christ from Jerusalem to lUyricum," and
afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under
'■' The universal testimony of antiquity assigns John's later life
to Ephesus: e.g. Irenseus, Adv. Hcer. III. i. i and 3. 4, etc.;
Clement of Alex., Quis Dives Salvettir, c. 42 (quoted by Eusebius,
chap. 23, below) ; Polycrates in his Epistle to Victor (quoted by
Eusebius in chap. 31, below, and in Bk. V. chap. 24); and many
others. The testimony of Irenaeus is especially weighty, for the
series: Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, the pupil of John, forms a
complete chain such as we have in no other case. Such testimony,
when its force is broken by no adverse tradition, ought to be suffi-
cient to establish John's residence in Ephesus beyond the shadow of
a doubt, but it has been denied by many of the critics who reject
the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel (e.g. Keim, Holtz-
mann, the author of Supernal. Religion, and others), though the
denial is much less positive now than it was a few years ago. The
chief arguments urged against the residence of John in Ephesus are
two, both a silentio : first, Clement in his first Epistle to the Cor-
inthians speaks of the apostles in such a way as to seem to imply
that they were all dead; secondly, in the Ignatian Epistles, Paul is
mentioned, but not John, which is certainly very remarkable, as
one is addressed to Ephesus itself. In reply it may be said that sucli
an interpretation of Clement's words is not necessary, and that the
omission of John in the epistles of Ignatius becomes perfectly nat-
ural if the Kplstles are thrown into the time of Hadrian or into the
latter part of Trajan's reign, as they ought to be (cf. chap. 36, note 4).
In the face of the strong testimony for John's Ephesian residence
these two objections must be overruled. The traditional view is
defended by all conservative critics as well as by the majority even
of those who deny the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel (cf.
especially Hilgenfeld in his Eiiileitung, and Weizsacker in his
Apostoliches Zeitalter). The silence of Paul's epistles and of the
Acts proves that John cannot have gone to Ephesus until after Paul
had permanently left there, and this we should naturally e.xpect to
be the case. Upon the time of John's banishment to Patmos, .see
Bk. III. chap. 18, note i. Tradition reports that he lived until the
reign of Tr.ajan (98-117). Cf. Irena;us, II. 22. 5 and III. 3. 4.
'' Origen in this extract seems to be uncertain how long John
remained in Ephesus and when he died.
" The language of Origen ((ceKTjpuxeVai ioi.K(v, instead of Adyos
exei or TTapaiSotris jreptexei) seems to imply that he is recording not
a tradition, but a conclusion drawn from the first Epistle of Peter,
which was known to him, and in which these places are mentioned.
Such a tradition did, however, exist quite early. Cf. e.g. the Syriac
Doctrina Apostoloriim (ed. Cureton) and the Gnostic Acts of
Peter and Andrew. The former assigns to Peter, Antioch, Syria,
and Cilicia, in addition to Galatia and Pontus, and cannot, therefore,
rest solely upon the first P'.pistle of Peter, which does not mention
tlie first three places. All the places assigned to Peter are portions
of the field of P.iul, who in all the traditions of this class is com-
pletely crowded out and his field given to other apostles, showing
the Jewish origin of the traditions. Upon Peter's activity in Rome
and his death there, see Hk. II. chap. 25, note ^.
" Five provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned in i Pet. i. i.
'" Origen is the first to record that Peter was crucified with his
head downward, but the tradition afterward became quite common.
It is of course not impossible, but the absence of any reference to
it by earlier Fathers (even by Tertullian, who mentions the cruci-
fixion), and its decidedly legendary character, render it exceedingly
do.ibtfnl.
" Cf. Rom. XV. 19. Illyrlcnm was a Koman province lying
along the eastern coast of the Adriatic.
III. 3-]
THE EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLES.
133
Nero ? '- These facts are related by Origen in
the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis."
CHAPTER II.
The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.
After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter,
1-inus ^ was the first to obtain the episcopate of
the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when
writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation
at the end of the epistle.^
CHAPTER III.
The Epistles of the Apostles.
1 One epistle of Peter, that called the first,
is acknowledged as genuine.' And this the
1- See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 3.
'3 This fragment of Origen has been preserved by no one else.
It is impossible to tell where the quotation begins — whether with
the words " Thomas according to tradition received Parthia," as I
have given it, or with the words " Peter appears to have preached,"
etc., as Bright gives it. ^
1 The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is
a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by
Irena;us {Adv. Hcer. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius, ac-
cording to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hip-
polytus gives a different order, in which he is followed by many-
Fathers; and in addition to these two chief arrangements all possi-
ble combinations of the three names, and all sorts of theories to ac-
count for the difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the
earlier lists, have been proposed. In the second chapter of the so-
called Epistle qf Clemeiii to jf antes (a part of the Pseudo-Clemen-
tine Literature prefi.xed to the Hoiiiilics) it is said that Clement was
ordained by Peter, and Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus
to change the order, putting Clement first. Gieseler {Ecch-s. Hist.,
Eng. Trans., I. p. 107, note 10) explains the disagreements in the
various traditions by supposing that the three were presbyters to-
gether at Rome, and that later, in the endeavor to make out a com-
plete list of bishops, they were each successively elevated by tradi-
tion to the episcopal chair. It is at least certain that Rome at that
early date had no monarchical bishop, and therefore the ques-
tion as to the order of these first three so-called bishops is not a
question as to a fact, but simply as to which is the oldest of various
unfounded traditions. The Roman Church gives the following
order: Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus, following Hippolytus in
making Cletus and Anacletus out of the single Anencletus of the
original tradition. The apocryphal martyrdoms of Peter and Paul
are falsely ascribed to Linus (see Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apocr.
p. xix. sq.). Eusebius (chap. 13, below) says that Linus was
bishop for twelve years. In his Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen
years, while Jerome says eleven. These dates are about as reliable
as the episcopal succession itself. We have no trustworthy infor-
mation as to the personal character and history of Linus. Upon the
subjects discussed in this note see especially Salmon's articles, Clem-
ens Roinanus, and Linus, in the Diet, of Christ. Biog.
2 2 Tim. iv. 21. The same identification is made by Irenaeus,
Adv. Heer. III. 3. 3, and by Pseudo-Ignatius in the Epistle to the
Tralliaiis (longer version), chap. 7.
1 The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of
the first Epistle of Peter. It was known to Clement of Rome, Poly-
carp, Papias, Hermas, &c. (the IMuratorian Fragment, however,
omits it), and was cited under the name of Peter by Irenaius, Ter-
tuUian, and Clement of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity
and Petrine authorship were established, so that Eusebius rightly
puts it among the honiologojciiietia. Semler, in 1784, was the first
to deny its direct Petrine authorship, and Cludiu.'!, in 1808, pro-
nounced it absolutely ungenuine. The Tubingen School followed,
and at the present time the genuineness is denied by all the negative
critics, chiefly on account of the strong Pauline character of the
epistle (cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 487 sqq., also Weiss, Eiii-
Icitung, p. 428 sqq., who confines the resemblances to the Epistles
to the Romans and to the Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline
character of the epistle). The great majority of scholars, however,
maintain the Petrine authorship. A new opinion, expressed by
Harnack, upon the assumption of the distinctively Pauline charac-
ter of the epistle, is that it was written during the apostolic age by
some follower of Paul, and that the name of Peter was afterward at-
tached to it, so that it represents no fraud on the part of the writer,
ancient ciders - used freely in their own writings
as an undisputed work.^ But we have learned
that his extant second Epistle does not be-
long to the canon ; ■* yet, as it has appeared
profitable to many, it has been used with
the other Scriptures."' The so-called Acts 2
of Peter,'' however, and the GospeF which
bears his name, and the Preaching** and the
but an efibrt of a later age to find an author for the anonymous epis-
tle. In support of this is urged the fact that though the epistle is
so frequently quoted in the second century, it is never connected
with Peter's name until the time of Irena;us. (Cf. Harnack's Lehre
dcr Zwblf Apostel, p. io6, note, and his Dpg)nengeschichte, I.
p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few supporters.
- oi ■na.Ka.i 7rpccr/3uT«poi. On the use of the term " elders " among
the Fathers, see below, chap. 39, note 6.
^ ouK iv&i.a.6i)Kov ii.iv i\.va.t. napei\ri(f>aiJiev. The authorship of
the second Epistle of Peter has always been widely disputed. The
external testimonj^ for it is very weak, as no knowledge of it can be
proved to have existed before the third century. Numerous expla-
nations have been offered by apologists to account for this curious
fact; but it still remains almost inexplicable, if the epistle be ac-
cepted as the work of the apostle. The first clear references to it
are made by Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (third
century), in his Epistle to Cyprian, § 6 (-£/. 74, in the collection of
Cyprian's Epistles, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., V. p. 391), and
by Origen (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the
second Epistle as disputed. Clement of Alexandria, however, seems
at least to have known and used it (according to Euseb. VI. 14).
The epistle was not admitted into the Canon until the Council of
Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and discussion ceased until the
Reformation. It is at present disputed by all negative critics, and
even by many otherwise conservative scholars. Those who de-
fend its genuineness date it shortly before the death of Peter, while the
majority of those who reject it throw it into the second century, —
some as late as the time of Clement of Alexandria (e.g. Harnack, in
his Lehre dcr Z"cvdlf Apostcl, p. 15 and 159, who assigns its com-
position to Egypt). Cf. Holtzmann, .£z«/«y?i7/^, p. 49s sqq., and
Weiss (who leaves its genuineness an open question), Einlciiiing,
p. 436 sqq. For a defense of the genuineness, see especially War-
field, in the Southern Prcs. Rev., 1883, p. 390 sqq., and Salmon's
Introduction to the N. T., p. 512 sqq.
s Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and conse-
quently not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the
fourth century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite
widely from the time of Origen on, e.g. i)y Origen, Firmilian, Cy-
prian, Hippolytus, Methodius, etc. The same is true, however, of
other writings, which the Church afterward placed among the Apoc-
rypha.
6 These Trpofei? (or Trepi'oSot, as they are often called) TleVpou
were of heretical origin, according to Lipsius, and belonged, like the
heretical Acta Pauli (referred to in note 20, below), to the collec-
tion of mpio&oL Ti>v aiTocTokuyv, which were ascribed to Lucius
Ciharinus, and, like them, formed also, from the end of the fourth
century, a part of the Manichean Canon of the New Testament.
The work, as a whole, is no longer extant, but a part of it is pre-
served, according to Lipsius, in a late Catholic redaction, under the
title Passio Petri. Upon these Acts 0/ Peter, their original form,
and their relation to other works of the same class, see Lipsius,
Apocryphen Apostelgeschichten, II. i, p. 78 sq. Like the heretical
Acta Pauli already referred to, this work, too, was used in the
composition of the Catholic Acts of Paul and Peter, which are still
extant, and which assumed their present form in the fifth century,
according to Lipsius. The.se Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul
have been published by Thilo {Acta Petri et Pauli, Halle, 1837),
and by Tischendorf, in his Acta Apost. Apocr., p. 1-39. English
translation in the Avte-Nicenc Fathers (Am. ed.), VIII. p. 477.
' This Gospel is mentioned by Serapion as in use in the church
of Rhossus (quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 12, below), but was
rejected by him because of the heretical doctrines which it contained.
It is mentioned again by Eusebius, III. 25, only to be rejected as
heretical; also by Origen {in Matt. Vol. X. 17) and by Jerome {de
vir. ill. i), who follows Eusebius in pronouncing it an heretical
work employed by no early teachers of the Christian Church. Lip-
sius regards it as probably a Gnostic recast of one of the Canonical
Gospels. From Serapion's account of this Gospel (see below, Bk.
VI. chap. 12), we see that it differs from the Canonical Gospels, not
in denying their truth, or in giving a contradictory account of
C;hrist's life, but rather in adding to the account given by them.
This, of course, favors Lipsius' hypothesis; and in any case he is
certainly quite right in denying that the Gospel was an original work
made use of by Justin Martyr, and that it in any way lay at the base
of our present Gospel of Mark. The Gospel (as we learn from the
same chapter) was used by the Docctce, but that does not imply that
it contained what we call Docetic ideas of Christ's body (cf. note 8
on that chapter). The Gospel is no longer extant. See Lipsius, in
Smith and Wace's /)/V^. o/TArzVA ^/i7jf-. II. p. 712.
8 This Preaching of Peter (K^puy/aa n«Tpou, Prcedicatto Pe-
tri), which is no longer extant, probably formed a part of a lost
134
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 3.
Apocalypse," as they are called, we know have
not been universally accepted,^" because no ec-
clesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made
use of testimonies drawn from them."
3 But in the course of my history I shall
be careful to show, in addition to the
official succession, what ecclesiastical writers
have from time to time made use of any of the
disputed works,'^ and what they have said in
regard to the canonical and accepted writings,^^
as well as in regard to those which are not
4 of this class. Such are the writings that
bear the name of Peter, only one of which
I know to be genuine '■* and acknowledged by
the ancient elders.^^
5 Paul's fourteen epistles are well known
and undisputed.^" It is not indeed right to
overlook the fact that some have rejected the
Epistle to the Hebrews,^'' saying that it is dis-
Preaching 0/ Peter and Paul (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom.
VI. 5, and Lactantius, Inst. IV. 21). It was mentioned frequently
by the early Fathers, and a number of fragments of it have been
preserved by Clement of Alexandria, who quotes it frequently as a
genuine record of Peter's teaching. (The fragments are collected
by Grabc in his Spic. Patr. I. 55-71, and by Hilgenfeld in his iV. T.
e.rtra Can. rcc, 2d ed., IV. p. 51 sqq.). It is mentioned twice by
Origen {in yohait. XIII. 17, and De Princ. Prsef. 8), and in the
latter place is expressly classed among spurious works. It was
probably, according to Lipsius, closely connected with the Acts of
Peter and Paul mentioned in note 6, above. Lipsius, however, re-
gards those Acts as a Catholic adaptation of a work originally Ebi-
onitic, though he says expressly that the Preaching is not at all of
that character, but is a Petro-Pauline production, and is to be dis-
tinguished from the Ebionitic KrjpO-y/uaTa. It would seem therefore
that he must put the Preaching\-3X^x than the original of the Acts,
into a time when the Ebionitic character of the latter had been done
away with. Salmon meanwhile holds that the Preaching '\s as old
as the middle of the second century and the most ancient of the
works recording Peter's preaching, and hence (if this view be ac-
cepted) the Ebionitic character which Lipsius ascribes to the Acts
did not (if it existed at all) belong to the original form of the record
of Peter's preaching embodied in the Acts and in the Preaching.
The latter (if it included also the Preaching 0/ Paul, as seems al-
most certain) appears to have contained an account of some of the
events of the life of Christ, and it may have been used by Justin.
Compare the remarks of Lipsius in the Did. of Christ. Biog. I.
p. 28 {Cath. A da/itations 0/ Ebionitic Acts), and Salmon's article
on the Preaching of Peter, ibid. IV. 329.
'•' The Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the
early Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine
work of the apostle. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment
in connection with the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman
Canon, and is accepted by the author of the fragment himself; al-
though he says that some at that time rejected it. Clement of Alexan-
dria, in hii Hypotyposes (according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), com-
mented upon it, thus showing that it belonged at that time to the
Alexandrian Canon. It the third century it was still received in the
North African Church (so Harnack, who refers to the stichometry
of the Codex Claramontanus). The Ecloga: or Prophetical Se-
lections of Clement of Alexandria give it as a genuine work of Peter
(§§ 41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq.. Potter's ed.), and so Methodius of Tyre
\Sympos. XI. 6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to Lipsius). After Euse-
bius' time the work seems to have been universally regarded as spuri-
ous, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its apostolic origin
(see chap. 2.^, note 19) , it gradually fell out of the Canon. It never-
theless held Its place for centuries among the semi-scriptural books,
and was read in many churches. According to Sozomen, H. E.
VII. 19, it was read at Easter, which shows that it was treated with
especial respect. Nicephorus in his Stichometry puts it among the
Antilegomena, in immediate connection with the Apocalypse of
John. As Lipsius remarks, its " lay-recognition in orthodox circles
proves that it could not have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise
nave contained what was offensive to Catholic Christians " (see Lip-
sius, Diet, of Christ. Biog. I. p. 130 sqq.). Only a few fragments
of the work are extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his
Nov. Test, extra Can. receptnm, IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe, Spic.
Patr. I. 71 sqq.^
1' oiiS 6A(os ev KafloAtKai! Xaft-iv napaStSoixiva.
" Eusebius exaggerates in this statement. The Apocalypse of
Peter was in quite general use in the second century, as we learn
from the Muratorian Fragment; and Clement (as Eusebius himself
says in VI. 14) wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the
other Antilegomena.
12 Tuji/ al'TtAeyOM^Vajf .
1' TTtp'i 7(1)1' kvhi.a.9i)Kiav Kal ojioAoyoUfxil'ail'.
** wv \t.6vf\v fjiiav yvrjaiav iyvijjv,
'" As above; see note 2.
>" The thirteen Pauline Epistles of our present Canon, and the
Epistle to the Hebrews. These formed for Eusebius an absolutely
undisputed part of the Canon (cf. chap. 25, below, where he speaks
of them with the same complete assurance), and were universally
accepted until the present century. The external testimony for all
of them is ample, going back (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) to
the early part of the second century. The Epistles to the Romans,
Corinthians, and Galatians have never been disputed (except by
an individual here and there, especially during the last few years
in Holland), even the Tiibingen School accepting them as genuine
works of Paul. The other epistles have not fared so well. The
genuineness of Ephesians was first questioned by Usteri in 1824 and
De Wette in 1826, and the Tubingen School rejected it. Schol-
ars are at present greatly divided; the majority of negative critics
reject it, while many liberal and all conservative scholars defend it.
Colossians was first attacked by Mayerhoff in 1838, followed by the
whole Tubingen School. It fares to-day somewhat better than
Ephesians. It is still, however, rejected by many extreme critics,
while others leave the matter in suspense (e.g. Weizsacker in his
Aposiolisches Zeitalter). Since 1872, when the theory was pro-
posed by Holtzmann, some scholars have held that our present
Epistle contains a genuine Epistle of Paul toj the Colossians, of
which it is a later revision and expansion. Baur and the Tubingen
School were the first to attack Philippians as a whole, and it too is
still rejected by many critics, but at the same time it is more widely
accepted than either Ephesians or Colossians (e.g. Weizsacker and
even Hilgenfeld defend its genuineness). Second Thessalonians
was first attacked by Schmidt in 1801, followed by a number rif
scholars, until Baur extended the attack to the first Epistle also.
Second Thessalonians is still almost unanimously rejected by negative
critics, and even by some moderates, while First Thessalonians has
regained the support of many of the former (e.g. Hilgenfeld, Weiz-
sacker, and even Holtzmann), and is entirely rejected by compara-
tively few critics. Philemon — which was first attacked by Baur —
is quite generally accepted, but the Pastoral Epistles are almost as
generally rejected, except by the regular conservative school (upon
the Pastorals, see Bk. II. chap. 22, note 8, above). For a concise
account of the state of criticism upon each epistle, see Holtzmann's
Einleitung. For a defense of them all, see the Eiiilcitung of Weiss.
1' Tives >j9eT>JKao-i.. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not
written by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be re-
garded as absolutely certain. It does not itself lay any claim to
Pauline authorship ; its theology and style are both non-Pauline;
and finally, external testimony is strongly against its direct con-
nection with Paul. The first persons to assign the epistle to Paul
are Pahtjenus and Clement of Alexandria (see below, Bk. VI. chap.
14), and they evidently find it necessary to defend its Pauline au-
thorship in the face of the objections of others. Clement, indeed,
assumes a Hebrew original, which was translated into Greek by
Luke. Origen (see below, I5k. VI. chap. 25) leaves its authorship
undecided, but thinks it probable that the thoughts are Paul's, but
the diction that of some one else, who has recorded what he heard
from the apostle. He then remarks that one tradition assigned it to
Clement of Rome, another to Luke. Eusebius himself, in agree-
ment with the Alexandrians (who, with the exception of Origen,
unanimously accept the Pauline authorship) , looks upon it as a work
of Paul, but accepts Clement of Alexandria's theory that it was
written in Hebrew, and thinks it probable that Clement of Rome
was its translator (see chap. 38, below). In the Western Church,
where the epistle was known very early (e.g. Clement of Rome uses
it freely), it is not connected with Paul until the fourth century.
Indeed, Tertullian {dc pndicit. 20) states that it bore the name of
Barnabas, and evidently had never heard that it had been ascribed
to any one else. The influence of the Alexandrians, however, finally
prevailed, and from the fifth century on we find it universally ac-
cepted, both East and West, as an epistle of Paul, and not until the
Reformation was its origin again questioned. Since that time its
authorship has been commonly regarded as an insoluble mystery.
Numerous guesses have been made (e.g. Luther guessed Apollos,
and he has been followed by many), but it is impossible to prove
that any of them are correct. For B.irnabas, however, more can
be said than for any of the others. Tertullian expressly connects
the epistle with him; and its contents are just what we should ex-
pect from the pen of a Levite who had been for a time under Paul's
influence, and yet had not received his Christianity from him; its
standpoint, in fact, is Lcvitic, and decidedly non-Pauline, and yet
reveals in many places the influence of Pauline ideas. Still further,
it is noticeable that in the place where the Epistle to the Hebrews is
first ascribed to Paul, there first appears an epistle which is ascribed
(quite wrongly; see below, chap. 25, note 20) to Barnabas. May it
not be (as has been suggested by Weiss and others) that the anony-
mous Epistle to the Hebrews was originally accepted in Alexandria
as the work of Barnabas, but that later it was ascribed to Paul; and
that the tradition that Barnabas had written an epistle, which must
still have remained in the Church, led to the ascription of another
anonymous epistle to him? We seem thus most easily to e.vplain the
false ascription of the one epistle to Paul, and the false ascription of the
other to Barnabas. It may be said that the claims of both Barnabas and
Apollos h.ive many supporters, while still more attempt no decision.
In regard to the canonicity of the epistle there seems never to
III. 3.]
THE EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLES.
135
puted '* by the church of Rome, on the ground
that it was not written by Paul. But what has
been said concerning this epistle by those who
lived before our time I shall quote in the proper
place.''' In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul,""
I have not found them among the undisputed
writmgs.
6 But as the same apostle, in the saluta-
tions at the end of the Epistle to the Ro-
mans,^" has made mention among others of
Hermas, to whom the book called The Shep-
herd-" is ascribed, it should be observed that
have been any serious dispute, and it is this fact doubtless which
did ir.ost to foster the belief in its Pauline authorship from the third
century on. tor the criterion of canonicity more and more came to
be looked upon as apostolicity, direct or indirect. The early Church
had cared little for such a criterion. In only one place does Eusebius
seem to imply that doubts existed as to its canonicity, — in Bk. VI.
chap. 13, where he classes it with the Book of Wisdom, and the Epis-
tles of Barnabas, Clement,, and Jude, among the antilegoinena. But
in view of his treatment of it elsewhere it must be concluded that
he is thinking in that passage not at all of its canonicity, but of its
Pauline authorship, which he knows is disputed by some, and in
reference to which he uses the same word, aj'TtAeyecrOai, in the pres-
ent sentence. Upon the canonicity of the epistle, see still further
chap. 25, note i. For a discussion of the epistle, see especially the
N. T. Introductions of Weiss and Holtzmann.
18 aiTiAsytcrflat. !'■' See Bk. VI. chaps. 14, 20, 25.
29 These n-pdfei? are mentioned also in chap. 25, below, where
they are classed among the I'oSot, implying that they had been orig-
inally accepted as canonical, but were not at the time Eusebius
wrote widely accepted as such. This implies that they were not,
like the works which he mentions later in the chapter, of an hereti-
cal character. They were already known to Origen, who (^Dc Friii.
I. 2, 3) refers to them in such a way as to show that they were in good
repute in the Catholic Church. They are to be distinguished from
the Gnostic -mpiohoL or irpcifei? nauAoi/, which from the end of the
fourth century formed a part of the Manichean canon of the New
Testament, and of which some fragments are still extant under vari-
ous forms. The failure to keep these Catholic and heretical Acta
Fault aXviay!, distinct has caused considerable confusion. Both of
these Acts, the Catholic and the heretical, formed, according to Lip-
sius {Apokr. Apostclgcschiclitcn, II. i, p. 305 sq.) one of the
sources of the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, which in their
extant form belong to the fifth century. For a discussion of these
Catholic Acts of Paul referred to by Eusebius, see Lipsius, ibid., p.
21 ov6e \Cr^v ras Xeyo/i-et/as avTou Trpaf eis ef a.vaiJ,<f>iKeKToi.s Trapet-
\ri<l>a.
-'■* See Rom. xvi. 14. The greater part of this last chapter of
Romans is considered by many a separate epistle addressed to Eph-
esus. This has been quite a common opinion since 1829, when it
was first broached by David Schulz (Studieu uiid Kritikeii, p. 629
sq.), and is accepted even by many conservative scholars (e.g.
Weiss) , while on the other hand it is opposed by many of the oppo-
site school. While Aquila and Priscilla, of verse 3, and Epsenetus,
of verse 5, seem to point to Ephesus, and the fact that so many
personal friends are greeted, leads us to look naturally to the East as
Paul's field of labor, where he had formed so many acquaintances,
rather than to Rome, where he had not been ; yet on the other hand
such names as Junias, Narcissus, Rufus, Hermas, Nereus, Aristo-
bulus, and Herodion point strongly to Rome. We must, however,
be content to leave the matter undecided, but may be confident that
the evidence for the Ephesian hypothesis is certainly, in the face of
the Roman names mentioned, and of universal tradition (for which
as for Eusebius the epistle is a unit), not strong enough to estab-
lish it.
-■" The Shepherd of Hermas was in circulation in the latter half
of the second century, and is quoted by Irenseus {Adv. Hier. IV.
20. 2) as Scripture, although he omits it in his discussion of Scrip-
ture testimonies in Bk. III. chap. 9 sqq., which shows that he con-
sidered it not quite on a level with regular Scripture. Clement of
Alexandria and Origen often quote it as an inspired book, though
the latter expressly distinguishes it from the canonical books, admit-
ting that it is disputed by many (cf. De Prin. IV. 11). Eusebius
in chap. 25 places it among the I'dSot or spurious writings in connec-
tion with the Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. According
to the Muratorian Fragment it was " written very recently in our
times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother. Bishop
Pius, sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also
ought to be read; but it cannot be made public in the Church to the
people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete,
nor among the apostles to the end of time." This shows the very
high esteem in which the work was held in that age. It was very
widely employed in private and in public, both in the East and the
West, until about the fourth century, when it gradually passed out
of use. Jerome {de vir. ill. 10) says that it was almost unknown
this too has been disputed by some, and on
their account cannot be placed among the ac-
knowledged books ; while by others it is con-
sidered (luite indispensable, especially to those
who need instruction in the elements of the
faith. Hence, as we know, it has been i)ublicly
read in churches, and I have found that some
of the most ancient writers used it.
This will serve to show the divine writ- 7
ings that are undisputed as well as those
that are not universally acknowledged.
among the Latins of his time. As to the date and authorship of
the Shepherd opinions vary widely. The only direct testimony of
antiquity is that of the Muratorian Fragment, whicli says that it
was written by Hermas, the brother of Pius, during the episcopacy
of the latter (r39-i54 A.D.). This testimony is accepted by the
majority of scholars, most of whom date the book near the middle
of the second century, or at least as late as the reign of Hadrian.
This opinion received not long ago what was supposed to be a strong
confirmation from the discovery of the fact that Hermas in all proba-
bility quoted from Theodotion's version of Daniel (see Hort's article
in the Johns Hopkins University Circular, December, 1884) , which
has been commonly ascribed to the second century. But it must now
be admitted that no one knows the terminus a quo for the compo-
sition of Theodotion's version, and therefore the discovery leaves
the date of Hermas entirely undetermined (see SchUrer, Gesch. dcs
j'udisclien I'olkes, II. p. 709). Meanwhile Eusebius in this con-
nection records the tradition, which he had read, that the book was
written by the Hermas mentioned in Romans xvi. This tradition,
however, appears to be no older than Origen, with whom it is no
more than a mere guess. While in our absence of any knowledge
as to this Hermas we cannot absolutely disprove his claim (unless
we prove decisively the late date of the book) , there is yet no ground
for accepting it other than a mere coincidence in a very common
name. In I'is. II. 4. 3 Hermas is told to give one copy of his
book to Clement. From this it is concluded by many that the
author must have been contemporary with the well-known Roman
Clement, the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians. While this
appears very likely, it cannot be called certain in the face of evidence
for a considerably later date. Internal testimony helps us little, as
there is nothing in the book which may not have been written at
the very beginning of the second century, or, on the other hand, as
late as the middle of it. Zahn dates it between 97 and 100, and
assigns it to an unknown Hermas, a contemporary of the Roman
Clement, in which he is followed by Salmon in a very clear and
keen article in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. Critics are unanimously
agreed that the book was written in Rome. It consists of three
parts. Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes, and is of the nature of
an apocalypse, written for the purpose of reforming the life of the
Church, which seemed to the author to have become very corrupt.
The work (especially the last part) is in the form of an allegory,
and has been comoared to the Pilgrim'' s Progress. Opinions are
divided as to whether it is actually founded upon visions and dreams
of the author, or is wholly a fiction. The former opinion seems to
be the more probable.
Until recent years only a Latin translation of Hermas was known.
In 1856 the first Greek edition was issued by Anger and Dindorf,
being based upon a Mt. Athos MS. discovered shortly before by
Simonides. Of t'ne ten leaves of the MS. the last was lost; three
were sold by Simonides to the University of Leipsic, and the other
six were transcribed by him in a very faulty manner. The Sinaitic
Code.x has enabled us to control the text of Simonides in part, but
imfortunately it contains only the I'isions and a small part of the
Mandates. All recent editions have been obliged to take the faulty
transcription of Simonides as their foundation. In 1880 the six
leaves of the Athos Codex, which had been supposed to be lost, and
which were known only through Simonides' transcription, were dis-
covered by Lambros at Mt. Athos, and in 1888 A Collation of the
Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas by Dr. Spyr Lambros
was issued in English translation by J. A. Robinson, at Cambridge,
England. We thus have now a reliable Greek text of nine-tenths of
the Shepherd of Hermas. Hilgenfeld, in his last edition (1887) of
his Novum Test. Extra Can. Pec, published also a Greek text
of the lost part of the work, basing it upon a pretended transcription
by Simonides from the lost Athos MS. But this has been conclu-
sively shown to be a mere fraud on the part of Simonides, and we
are therefore still without any MS. authority for the Greek text
of the close of the work. Cf. Robinson's introduction to the
Collation of Lambros mentioned above, and Hamack s arti-
cles in the Theol. Literaturzeitung (1887). The most useful
edition of the original is that of Gebhardt and Hamack, Patrum
Apost. Opera, Fasc. III. (Lips. 1877). The work is translated
in the Antc-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. The literature upon the
subject is very extensive, but the reader should examine espe-
cially the Prolegomena of Hamack in his edition. Cf. Zahn's ///r/
des Hermas (1868), and the article by Salmon in the Diet, of
Christ. Biog. II. p. 912 sqq. Cf. also chap. 24, note 20, in regard
to the reasons for the non-canonicity of the Shepherd.
136
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 4.
CHAPTER IV.
The First Successors of the Apostles.
1 That Paul preached to the Gentiles and
laid the foundations of the churches " from
Jerusalem round about even unto Illyricum," is
evident both from his own words/ and from the
account which Luke has given in the Acts."
2 And in how many provinces Peter
preached Christ and taught the doctrine
of the new covenant to those of the circumcis-
ion is clear from his own words in his epistle
already mentioned as undisputed/ in which he
writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in Pon-
tus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithy-
3 nia/ But the number and the names of
those among them that became true and
zealous followers of the apostles, and were
judged worthy to tend the churches founded by
them, it is not easy to tell, except those
4 mentioned in the writings of Paul. For he
had innumerable fellow-laborers, or " fel-
low-soldiers," as he called them,^ and most of
them were honored by him with an imperishable
memorial, for he gave enduring testimony
5 concerning them in his own epistles. Luke
also in the Acts speaks of his friends, and
mentions them by name.^
6 Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first
to receive the episcopate of the parish
in Ephesus,'^ Titus of the churches in Crete/
■< I Pet. i. I.
'' Phil. ii. 25; Philem. 2.
> Rom. XV. 19.
- From Acts i.\. on.
3 In chap. 3, § I.
* Barnabas (Acts ix. 27, and often); John Mark (xii. 25; xiii.
13; XV. 37,39); Silas (xv. 40); Timothy (xvi. i sqq. and often);
Aquila and Priscilla (xviii.) ; Erastus (xix. 22) ; Gains of Mace-
donia (xix. 29); Aristarchus (xix. 29; xx. 4; xxvii. 2); Sopater,
Secundus, Gains of Derbe (perhaps the same as the Gains of Mace-
donia?), and Tychichus (xx. 4) ; Trophimus (xx. 4; xxi. 29).
' That Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus is stated also by
the Aposi. Co7ist. (VII. 46), and by Nicephorus (//. E. III. 11),
who records (upon what authority we do not know) that he suffered
martyrdom under Domitian. Against the tradition that he labored
during his later years in Ephesus there is nothing to be urged ; though
on the other hand the evidence for it amounts to little, as it seems to be
no more than a conclusion drawn from the Epistles toTimothy, though
hardly a conclusion drawn by Eusebius himself, for he uses the word
iaropeirai, which seems to imply that he had some authority for his
statement. According to those epistles, he was at the time of their
composition in Ephesus, though they give us no hint as to whether
he was afterward there or not. From Heb. xiii. 23 (the date of
which we do not know) we learn that he had just been released from
some imprisonment, apparently in Italy, but whither he afterward
went is tjuite uncertain. Eusebius' report that he was bishop of
Ephesus IS the customary but unwarranted carrying back into the
first century of the monarchical episcopate which was not known
imtil the second. According to the Apost. Const. VII. 46 both Tim-
othy and John were bishops of Ephesus, the former appointed by
Paul, the latter by himself. Timothy is a saint in the Roman Catholic
sense, and is commemorated January 24.
* Cf. Tit. i. 5. Titus is commonly connected by tradition with
Crete, of which he is supposed to have been the first bishop, — the
later institution being again pushed back into the first century. In
the fragment de I'ita et Actis Titi,\>y the lawyer Zenas (in tabric.
Cod. Apoc. N. T. II. 831 sqq., according to Howson, in Smith's Diet,
of the Bible), he is said to have been bishop of Gortyna, a city of
Crete (where still stand the ruins of a church which bears his name) ,
and of a royal Cretan family by birth. This tradition is late, and,
of course, of little authority, but at the same time, accords very
well with all that we know of Titus; and consequently there is no
reason for denying it in totn. According to 2 Tim. iv. 10, he went,
or was sent, into Dalmatia; but universal tmdition ascribes his later
life and his death to Crete. Candia, the modern capital, claims the
But Luke,^ who was of Antiochian parent- 7
age and a physician by profession,^" and
who was especially intimate with Paul and well
acquainted with the rest of the apostles,'^ has
left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that
spiritual healing art which he learned from them.
One of these books is the Gospel,^ which he
testifies that he wrote as those who were from
the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the
word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he
says, he followed accurately from the first. ^^ The
other book is the Acts of the Apostles " which he
honor of being his burial place (see Cave's Apostolici, ed. 1677,
p. 63). Titus is a saint, in the Roman Catholic sense, and is com-
memorated January 4.
'■' Of Luke personally we know very little. He is not mentioned
in the Acts, and only three times in Paul's epistles (Col. iv. 14;
Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11), from which passages we learn that he
was a physician, was one of Paul's fellow-workers who was very
dear to him, and was with him during his last imprisonment. Ire-
n2eus,who is the first to ascribe the third Gospel and the Acts to this
Luke, seems to know nothing more about him personally. Euse-
bius is the first to record that he was born at Antioch; but the tradi-
tion must have been universally accepted in his day, as he states it
without any misgivings and with no qualifying phrase. Jerome ((/c
vir. ill. 7) and many later writers follow Eusebms in this statement.
There is no intrinsic improbability in the tradition, which seems, in
fact, to be favored by certain minor notices in the Acts (see Schaff,
Ch. Hist. I. 651). Gregory Nazianzen {Oral. 25) says that he
labored in Achaia, and in Orai. 4 he calls him a martyr. Jerome
{ibid.') says that he was buried in Constantinople. According to
Nicephorus (//. E. II. 43) and later writers, Luke was a painter of
great skill; but this late tradition, of which the earlier Fathers know
nothing, is quite worthless. Epiphanius {Hier. IT. n) makes him
one of the Seventy, which does not accord with Luke's own words
at the beginning of his Gospel, where he certainly implies that he
himself was not an eye-witness of the events which he records. In
the same connection, Epiphanius says that he labored in Dalmatia,
Gallia, Italy, and Macedonia, — a tradition which has about as much
worth as most such traditions in regard to the fields of labor of the
various apostles and their followers. Theophylact {On Luke xxi v.
13-24) records that some supposed that he was one of the disciples
with whom Christ walked to Emmaus, and this ingenious but un-
founded guess has gained some modern supporters (e.g. Lange) .
He is a saint in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated
October 18. '" See Col. iv. 14.
11 Of Luke's acquaintance with the other apostles we know
nothing, although, if we suppose him to have been the author of the
" We" sections in the Acts, he was with Paul in Jerusalem at the
time he was taken prisoner (Acts xxi.), when he met James at least,
and possibly others of the Twelve. It is not at all improbable that
in the course of his life he became acquainted with several of the
apostles.
1- The testimony to the existence of our third Gospel, although
it is not so old as that for Matthew and Mark, is still very early.
It was used by Marcion, who based upon it his own mutilated gos-
pel, and is quoted very frequently by Justin Martyr. The Gospel
is first distinctly ascribed to Luke by Irena;us (III. i. i) and by the
Muratorian Fragment. From that time on tradition was unanimous
both as to its authorship and its authority. The common opinion —
still defended by the great majority of conservative critics — has
always been that the third Gospel was written before the destruction
of Jerusalem. The radical critics of the present century, however,
bring its composition down to a latter date — ranging all the way
from 70 to 140 (the latter is Baur's date, which is now universally
recognized as very wild). Many conservative critics put its compo-
sition after the destruction of Jerusalem on account of the peculiar
form of its eschatological discourses — e.g. Weiss, who puts it be-
tween 70 and 80 (while putting Matthew and Mark before the
destruction of Jerusalem). The traditional and still prevalent opin-
ion is that Luke's Gospel was written later than those of Matthew
and Mark. See the various commentaries and New Testament
Introductions, and for a clear exhibition of the synoptical problem
in general, see Schaff's Ch. Hist. I. p. 607 sqq. On Luke in partic-
ular, p. 648 sqq. '' Luke i. 2, 3.
'* Traces of a knowledge of the Acts are found in the Apostolic
Fathers, in Justin, and in Tatian, and before the end of the second
century the book occupied a place in the Canon, imdisputcd except
by heretics, such as the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. The Mura-
torian Fragment and Irena;us (III. 14) are the first to mention Luke
as the author of the Acts, but from that time on tradition has been
unanimous in ascribing it to him. The only exception occurs in the
case of I'hotius {ad Amphil. Qiuest. 123, ed. Migne), who states
that the work was ascribed by some to Clement, by others to Barna-
bas, and by others to Luke; but it is prob.able, as Weiss remarks,
that Photius, in this case, confuses the Acts with the Epistle to the
Hebrews. As to the date of its composition, Irena;us (III. i. i)
seems (one cannot speak with certainty, as some have done) to put
III. 4-]
FIRST SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.
composed not from the accounts of others,
8 but from what he had seen himself. And
they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's
Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel
of his own, he used the words, " according
9 to my Gospel." '^ As to the rest of his fol-
lowers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent
to Gaul ; "^ but Linus, whom he mentions in the
it after the death of Peter and Paul, and therefore, necessarily, the
Acts still later. The Muratorian Fragment implies that the work
was written at least after the death of Peter. Later, however, the
tradition arose that the work was written during the lifetime of Paul
(so Jerome, </<• ziir. ill. 7), and this has been the prevailing opinion
among conservative scholars ever since, although many put the
composition between the death of Paul and the destruction of Jeru-
salem; while some (e.g. Weiss) put it after the destruction of Jeru-
salem, though still assigning it to Luke. The opposite school of
critics deny Luke's authorship, throwing the book into the latter
part of the first century (Scholten, Hilgenfeld, Sic), or into the times
of Tr.ajan and Hadrian (e.g. Volkmar, Keim, Hausrath, &c.). The
Tiibingen School saw in the Acts a " tendency-writing." in which
the history was intentionally perverted. This theory finds few
supporters at present, even among the most e.\treme critics, all of
whom, however, consider the book a source of the second rank,
containing much that is legendary and distorted and irreconcilable
with Paul's Epistles, which are looked upon as the only reliable
source. The question turns upon the relation of the author of the
" we " sections to the editor of the whole. Conservative scholars
agree with universal tradition in identifying them (though this is
not necessary in order to maintain the historical accuracy of the
work), while the opposite school denies the identity, considering the
" we " sections authentic historical accounts from the pen of a
companion of Paul, which were afterward incorporated into a larger
work by one who was not a pupil of Paul. The identity of the
author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is now admitted by all
parties. See the various Commentaries and New Testament Intro-
ductions; and upon the sources of the Acts, compare especially
Weizsacker's A post. Zcitalter, p. 182 sqq., and Weiss' EinleiUmg,
p. 569 sq.
1^ Rom. ii. i5, xvl. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. Eusebius uses the expres-
sion c/iao-i, " they say," which seems to imply that the interpreta-
tion was a common one in his day. Schaff {CIi. Hist. L p. 649)
.says that Origen also thus interpreted the passages in Romans and
Timothy referred to, but he gives no references, and I have not
been able to find in Origen's works anything to confirm the state-
ment. Indeed, in commenting upon the passages in the Epistle to
the Romans he takes the words " my Gospel " to refer to the gospel
preached by Paul, not to the Gospel written by Luke. It is true,
however, that in the passage from his Commentary on Matthew,
quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below, Origen does suppose Paul
to refer to Luke and his Gospel in 2 Cor. viii. 18. The interpre-
tation of the words " according to my Gospel," which Euse-
bius represents as common in his day, is adopted also by Jerome
{^de vir. ill. chap. 7), but is a gross exegetical blunder. Paul
never uses the word evayye\iov in such a sense, nor is it used
by any New Testament writer to designate the gospel record, or
any one of the written Gospels. It is used always in the general
sense of " glad tidings," or to denote the scheme of salvation, or
the substance of the gospel revelation. Eusebius is not the first to
connect Luke's Gospel with Paul. The Muratorian Fragment
speaks of Luke's connection with Paul, and Irenseus (III. i. i,
quoted below in V. 8. § 2) says directly that Luke recorded the
Gospel preached by Paul. TertuUian {Adv. Marcion.W . $) te'ls
us that Luke's form of the Gospel is usually ascribed to Paul, and
in the same work, IV. 2, he lays down the principle that the preach-
ing of the disciples of the apostles needs the authority of the apostles
themselves, and it is in accord with this principle that so much
stress was laid by the early Church upon the connection of Mark
with Peter and of Luke with Paul. In chap. 24 Eusebius refers
again to Luke's relation to Paul in connection with his Gospel, and
so, too, Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 25. The
Pauline nature of the Gospel has always been emphasized, and still
is by the majority of scholars. This must not be carried so far,
however, as to imply that Luke drew his materials from Paul; for
Paul himself was not an eye-witness, and Luke expressly states in
his preface the causes which induced him to write, and the sources
from which he derived his material. The influence of Paul is seen
in Luke's standpoint, and in his general spirit — his Gospel is the
Gospel of universal salvation.
-'' 2 Tim. iv. 10, where the Greek word used is cTopeuSr/, which
means simply " went " or " is gone." That Paul had sent him as
Eusebius states (using the word (jTciAd/oiei'os) is not implied in the
epistle. Instead of f i; rds FaAAia; (or rr)^ VaWLav) most of the
ancient MSS. of the New Testament have ei? raAariar, which is
the reading of the Textus Receptus, of Tregelles, of Westcott and
Hort and others. Some MSS., however (including the Sinaitic),
have VoiXKiav, which Tischendorf adopts; and some of the MSS. of
Eusebius also have this form, though the majority read rds TaAAias.
Christophorsonus in his edition of Eusebius reads iul ti]v TaKaTiav,
but entirely without MS. authority. Epiphanius {H<er, LI. 11)
Second Epistle to Timothy " as his companion
at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episco-
pate of the church there, as has already
been shown.'* Clement also, who was ap- 10
pointed third bishop of the church at Rome,
was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fel-
low-soldier.^''' Besides these, that Areopa- 11
gite, named Dionysius, who was the first to
believe after Paul's address to the Athenians in
the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the
Acts)-" is mentioned by another Dionysius, an
contends that in 2 Tim. iv. 10 should be read ToAAia and not
PaAaTia: oil yap iV Try VaKaria 0J5 rii'es ■nXaini)iiivTy)<; voixi^ovaiv,
dAAd ei' 717 raAAia. Theodoret (in 2 Tim. IV. 10) reads raAartar,
but interprets it as meaning rds PaAAias: ovtui yap eKa\ovi'7o
TrctAat.
1^ 2 Tim. iv. 21. '8 See chap. 2, note i, above.
1'' Clement is mentioned in Phil. iv. 3, but is not called a " fellow-
soldier." Eusebius was evidently thinking of Paul's references to
Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 25) and to Archippus (Philem. 2), whom
he calls his fellow-soldiers. The Clement to whom Eusebius here
refers was a very important personage in the early Roman church,
being known to tradition as one of its first three bishops. He has
played a prominent part in Church history on account of the niuiier-
ous writings which have passed under his name. We know nothing
certain about his life. Eusebius identifies him with the Philippian
Clement mentioned by Paul, — an identification apparently made
first by Origen, and after him repeated by a great many writers.
But the identification is, to say the least, very doubtful, and resting
as it does upon an agreement in a very common name deserves little
consideration. It was quite customary in the early Church to find
Paul's companions, whenever possible, in responsible and influential
positions during the latter part of the first century. A more plausi-
ble theory, which, if true, would throw an interesting light upon
Clement and the Roman church of his day, is that which identifies
him with the consul Flavins Clement, a relative of the emperor Do-
mitian (see below, chap. 18, note 6). Some good reasons for the
identification might be urged, and his rank would then explain well
Clement's influential position in the Church. But as pointed out in
chap. 18, note 5, it is extremely improbable that the consul Flavius
Clement was a Christian; and in any case a fatal objection to the
identification (which is nevertheless adopted by Hilgenfeld and
others) is the fact that Clement is nowhere spoken of as a martyr
until the time of Rufinus, and also that no ancient writer identifies
him or connects him in any way with the consul, although Eusebius'
mention of the latter in chap. 23 shows that he was a well-known
person. When we remember the tendency of the early Church to
make all its heroes martyrs, and to ascribe high birth to them, the
omission in this case renders the identification, we may say, virtually
impossible. More probable is the conjectuie of Lightfoot, that he
was a freedman belonging to the family of the consul Clement, whose
name he bore. This is simply conjecture, however, and is supported
by no testimony. Whoever Clement was, he occupied a very promi-
nent position in the early Roman church, and wrote an epistle to
the Corinthians which is still extant (see below, chap. 16; and upon
the works falsely ascribed to him, see chap. 38). In regard to his
place in the succession of Roman bishops, see chap. 2, note i, above.
For a full account of Clement, see especially Harnack's Prolegomena
to his edition of Clement's Epistle {Fatrzim Apost. Opera, Vol. I.),
Salmon's article, ClcJnens Roiiianjis, in the Diet, cf Christ. Biog.,
Schafi"'s Ch. Hist. II. 636 sq., and Donaldson's Hist, of Christ.
Lit. and Doctrine, I. p. 90 sq.
-" Acts xvii. 34. This Dionysius has played an important part
in Church history, as the pretended author of a series of very re-
markable writings, which pass under the name of Dionysius, the
Areopagite, but which in reality date from the fifth or sixth century,
and probably owe their origin to the influence of Neo-PIatonism.
The first mention of these writings is in the records of the Council
of Constantinople (532 a.d.) ; but from that time on they were con-
stantly used and unanimously ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopa-
gite, until, in the seventeenth century, their claims to so great an-
tiquity were disputed. They are still defended, however, in the face
of the most positive evidence, by many Roman Catholic writers.
The influence of these works upon the theology of the Middle Ages
was prodigious. Scholasticism may be said to be based upon them,
for "Thomas Aquinas used them, perhaps, more than any other
source; so much so, that he has been said " to have drawn his whole
theological system from r)ionysius."
Our Dionysius has had the further honor of being identified by
tradition with Dionysius (St. Denis), the patron saint of France,—
an identification which we may follow the most loyal of the French
in accepting, if we will, though we shall be obliged to suppose that
our Dionysius lived to the good old age of two to three hundred
years.
The statement of Dionysius of Corinth that the Areopagite was
bishop of Athens (repeated by Eusebius again in Bk. IV. chap. 23)
is the usual unwarranted throwing back of a second century con-
ception into the first century. That Dionysius held a position of
t38
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 4.
ancient writer and pastor of the parisli in Cor-
inth,-' as the first bishop of the church at
12 Athens, But the events connected with the
apostohc succession we shall relate at the
proper time. Meanwhile let us continue the
course of our history.
CHAPTER V.
The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.
1 After Nero had held the power thirteen
years/ and Galba and Otho had ruled a
year and six months/ Vespasian, who had be-
come distinguished in the campaigns against the
Jews, was proclaimed sovereign in Judea and
received the title of Emperor from the armies
there.^ Setting out immediately, therefore, for
Rome, he entrasted the conduct of the war
2 against the Jews to his son Titus.* For the
Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in
addition to their crime against him, had been
devising as many plots as they could against his
apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by
them,"" and after him James, the son of Zebedee
and the brother of John, was beheaded," and
finally James, the first that had obtained the
episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension
of our Saviour, died in the manner already de-
scribed.'^ But the rest of the apostles, who had
been incessantly plotted against with a view to
their destruction, and had been driven out of
the land of Judea, went unto all nations to
preach the Gospel,** relying upon the power of
Christ, who had said to them, " Go ye and make
disciples of all the nations in my name." ^
3 But the people of the church in Jerusa-
lem had been commanded by a revelation,
vouchsafed to approved men there before the
influence among the few Christians whom Paul left in Athens is
highly probable, and the tradition that later he was made the first
bishop there is quite natural. The church of Athens plays no part
in the history of the apostolic age, and it is improbable that there
was any organization there until many years after Paul's visit; for
even in the time of Dionysius of Corinth, the church there seems to
have been extremely small and weak (cf. Bk. IV. chap. 23, § 2).
Upon Dionysius and the writings ascribed to him, see especially the
article of Lupton in the Diet, pf Christ. Biog. I. p. 841-848.
-' Upon Dionysius of Corinth, see Bk. IV. chap. 23, below.
1 Nero was emperor from Oct. 16, 54, to June 9, 68 a.d.
' Eusebius' figures are incorrect. He omits Vitellius entirely,
while he stretches Galba's and Olho's reigns to make them cover a
period of eighteen months, instead of nine (Galba reigned from
June 9, 68, to Jan. 15, 6p; and Otho from Jan. 15 to April 20, 69).
The total of the three reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius was about
eighteen months.
3 Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by the prefect of Egypt at
Alexandria, July i, 6g, while Vitellius was the acknowledged em-
peror in Italy. His choice was immediately ratified by his army in
Judea, and then by all the legions in the East. Vitellius was con-
quered by Vespasian's generals, and slain in Italy, Dec. 20, 69,
while Vespasian himself went to Alexandria. The latter was imme-
diately recognized by the Senate, and reached Italy in the summer
of 70. Eusebius is thus approximately correct, though he is not
exact as to details.
■■ Titus undertook the prosecution of the war against the Jews
after his father's departure, and brought the siege of Jerusalem to
an end, Sept. 8, 70 a.d.
'' See Acts vii. 8 sqq. * See chap, i, note i.
" See Acts xii. 2. " See Matt, xxviii. 19.
' Sec Bk. II. chap. 23.
war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain
town of Perea called Pella.^" And when those
that believed in Christ had come thither from
Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews
and the whole land of Judea were entirely desti-
tute of holy men, the judgment of God at length
overtook those who had committed such out-
rages against Christ and his apostles, and totally
destroyed that generation of impious men.
But the number of calamities which every- 4
where fell upon the nation at that time, the
extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of
Judea were especially subjected, the thousands
of men, as well as women and children, that
perished by the sword, by famine, and by other
forms of death innumerable, — all these things, as
well as the many great sieges which were carried
on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive
sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusa-
lem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and
finally the general course of the whole war, as
well as its particular occurrences in detail, and
how at last the abomination of desolation, pro-
claimed by the prophets," stood in the very
temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple
which was now awaiting its total and final de-
struction by fire, — all these things any one that
wishes may find accurately described in the his-
tory written by Josephus.^
But it is necessary to state that this writer 5
records that the multitude of those who
were assembled from all Judea at the time of the
Passover, to the number of three million souls,'"'
were shut up in Jerusalem " as in a prison,"
to use his own words. For it was right 6
that in the very days in which they had in-
flicted suffering upon the Saviour and the Bene-
factor of all, the Christ of God, that in those
days, shut up " as in a prison," they should
meet with destruction at the hands of divine
justice.
But passing by the particular calamities 7
which they suffered from the attempts made
upon them by the sword and by other means, I
think it necessary to relate only the misfortunes
which the famine caused, that those who read
"' Pella was a town situated beyond the Jordan, in the north of
Perea, within the dominions of Herod Agrippa II. The surround-
ing population was chiefly Gentile. See Pliny V. i8, and Josephus,
B. y. III. 3. 3, and I. 4. 8. Epiphanius {De pond, ct mens. 15)
also records this flight of the Christians to Pella.
11 Dan. ix. 27. '= Josephus, B. J. Bks. V. and VI.
'•' B.y.y\. 9, §§ 3 and 4. Eusebius simply gives round numbers.
Josephus in § 3 puts the number at 2,700,000, exclusive of the " un-
clean and the strangers" who were not allowed to eat the Passover.
In the same work, Bk. II. chap. 14, § 3, Josephus states that when
Cestius Gallus, governor of Syria, came to Jerusalem at the time
of the Passover in 65 a.d., no less than 3,000,000 persons came about
him to enter complaint against the procurator Florus. These num-
bers are grossly exaggerated. Tacitus estimates the number in the
city at the time of the siege as 600,000, but this, too, is far above
the truth. Tlic writer of the article Jerusalem, in Smith's /W'/f
Did., estimates that the city can never have had a population of
more than 50,000 souls, and he concludes that at the time of the
siege there cannot have been more than 60,000 or 70,000 collected
within the walls. This is probably too low an estimate, but shows
how far out of the way the figures of Josephus and Tacitus must be.
III. 6.]
THE FAMINE IN JERUSALEM.
139
this work may have some means of knowing that
God was not long in executing vengeance upon
them for their wickedness against the Christ of
God.
CHAPTER VI.
The Fa^nine ivhich oppressed them.
1 Taking the fifth book of the History of
Josephus again in our hands, let us go
through the tragedy of events which then
2 occurred.' " For the wealthy," he says, " it
was equally dangerous to remain. For un-
der pretense that they were going to desert men
were put to death for their wealth. The mad-
ness of the seditions increased with the famine,
and both the miseries were inflamed more
3 and more day by day. Nowhere was food
to be seen ; but, bursting into the houses,
men searched them thoroughly, and whenever
they found anything to eat they tormented the
owners on the ground that they had denied that
they had anything ; but if they found nothing,
they tortured them on the ground that they
4 had more carefully concealed it. The proof
of their having or not having food was found
in the bodies of the poor wretches. Those of
them who were still in good condition they as-
sumed were well supplied with food, while those
who were already wasted away they passed by,
for it seemed absurd to slay those who were
5 on the point of perishing for want. Many,
indeed, secredy sold their possessions for
one measure of wheat, if they belonged to the
wealthier class, of barley if they were poorer.
Then shutting themselves up in the innermost
parts of their houses, some ate the grain un-
cooked on account of their terrible want, while
others baked it according as necessity and
6 fear dictated. Nowhere were tables set, but,
snatching the yet uncooked food from the
fire, they tore it in pieces. Wretched was the
fare, and a lamentable spectacle it was to see the
more powerfiil secure an abundance while
7 the weaker mourned. Of all evils, indeed,
famine is the worst, and it destroys nothing
so effectively as shame. For that which under
other circumstances is worthy of respect, in the
midst of famine is despised. Thus women
snatched the food from the very mouths of
their husbands and children, from their fathers,
and what was most pitiable of all, mothers from
their babes. And while their dearest ones were
wasting away in their arms, they were not
ashamed to take away from them the last
8 drops that supported life. And even while
they were eating thus they did not remain
undiscovered. But everywhere the rioters ap-
1 Josephus, B. 7. Bk. V. chap. 10, §§ 2 and 3.
peared, to rob them even of these portions of
food. For whenever they saw a house shut up,
they regarded it as a sign that those inside were
taking food. And immediately bursting open
the doors they rushed in and seized what they
were eating, almost forcing it out of their
very throats. Old men who clung to their 9
food were beaten, and if the women con-
cealed it in their hands, their hair was torn for so
doing. There was pity neither for gray hairs nor
for infants, but, taking up the babes that clung
to their morsels of food, they dashed them to
the ground. But to those that anticipated their
entrance and swallowed what they were about to
seize, they were still more cruel, just as if
they had been wronged by them. And 10
they devised the most terrible modes of
torture to discover food, stopping up the privy
passages of the poor wretches with bitter herbs,
and piercing their seats with sharp rods. And
men suffered things horrible even to hear of, for
the sake of compelling them to confess to the
possession of one loaf of bread, or in order
that they might be made to disclose a single
drachm of barley which they had concealed.
But the tormentors themselves did not suf- 11
fer hunger. Their conduct might indeed
have seemed less barbarous if they had been
driven to it by necessity ; but they did it for the
sake of exercising their madness and of provid-
ing sustenance for themselves for days to
come. And when any one crept out of the 12
city by night as far as the outposts of the
Romans to collect wild herbs and grass, they
went to meet him ; and when he thought he had
already escaped the enemy, they seized what he
had brought with him, and even though often-
times the man would entreat them, and, calling
upon the most awful name of God, adjure them
to give him a portion of what he had obtained
at the risk of his life, they would give him noth-
ing back. Indeed, it was fortunate if the one
that was plundered was not also slain."
To this account Josephus, after relating
other things, adds "the following : "' " The
13
possibihty "of going out of the city being
brought to an end,'' all hope of safety for the
Jews was cut off. And the famine increased and
devoured the people by houses and families.
And the rooms were filled with dead women
and children, the lanes of the city with the
corpses of old men. Children and youths, 14
swollen with the famine, wandered about
the market-places like shadows, and fell down
wherever the death agony overtook them. The
sick were not strong enough to bury e\'en their
own relatives, and those who had the strength
2 Ibid. chap. 12, §§ 3 and 4. „ , . .u ^u..
3 Titus had just completed the building of a wall about the city
by which all egress from the town was shut off. Josephus gives an
account of the wall in the paragraph immediately preceding.
140
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[HI. 6.
hesitated because of the multitude of the dead
and the uncertainty as to their own fate. Many,
indeed, died while they were burying others,
and many betook themselves to their graves
15 before death came upon them. There was
neither weeping nor lamentation under these
misfortunes ; but the famine stifled the natural
affections. Those that were dying a lingering
death looked with dry eyes upon those that had
gone to their rest before them. Deep silence
and death-laden night encircled the city.
16 But the robbers were more terrible than
these miseries ; for they broke open the
houses, which were now mere sepulchres, robbed
the dead and stripped the covering from their
bodies, and went away with a laugh. They tried
the points of their swords in the dead bodies,
and some that were lying on the ground still
alive they thrust through in order to test their
weapons. But those that prayed that they would
use their right hand and their sword upon them,
they contemptuously left to be destroyed by the
famine. Every one of these died with eyes fixed
upon the temple ; and they left the seditious
17 alive. These at first gave orders that the
dead should be buried out of the public
treasury, for they could not endure the stench.
But afterward, when they were not able to do
this, they threw the bodies from the walls
18 into the trenches. And as Titus went
around and saw the trenches filled with the
dead, and the thick blood oozing out of the
putrid bodies, he groaned aloud, and, raising his
hands, called God to witness that this was
19 not his doing." After speaking of some
other things, Josephus proceeds as fol-
lows : * " I cannot hesitate to declare what my
feelings compel me to. I suppose, if the Ro-
mans had longer delayed in coming against
these guilty wretches, the city would have been
swallowed up by a chasm, or overwhelmed with
a flood, or struck with such thunderbolts as de-
stroyed Sodom. For it had brought forth a
generation of men much more godless than
were those that suffered such punishment. By
their madness indeed was the whole people
brought to destruction."
20 And in the sixth book he writes as fol-
lows : ^ "Of those that perished by famine
in the city the number was countless, and the
miseries they underwent unspeakable. For if
so much as the shadow of food appeared in any
house, there was war, and the dearest friends en-
gaged in hand-to-hand conflict with one another,
and snatched from each other the most wretched
supports of life. Nor would they believe
21 that even the dying were without food ; but
the robbers would search them while they
* Ibid. chap. 13, § 6.
^ Ibid. Bk. VI. chap. 3, §§ 3 and 4.
were expiring, lest any one should feign death
while concealing food in his bosom. With
mouths gaping for want of food, they stumbled
and staggered along like mad dogs, and beat
the doors as if they were drunk, and in their
impotence they would rush into the same
houses twice or thrice in one hour. Ne-
cessity compelled them to eat anything 22
they could find, and they gathered and de-
voured things that were not fit even for the filth-
iest of irrational beasts. Finally they did not
abstain even from their girdles and shoes, and
they stripped the hides off" their shields and de-
voured them. Some used even wisps of old
hay for food, and others gathered stubble and
sold the smallest weight of it for four Attic
drachmae.^
" But why should I speak of the shame- 23
lessness which was displayed during the
famine toward inanimate things? For I am
going to relate a fact such as is recorded
neither by Greeks nor Barbarians ; horrible to
relate, incredible to hear. And indeed I should
gladly have omitted this calamity, that I might
not seem to posterity to be a teller of fabulous
tales, if I had not innumerable witnesses to it
in my own age. And besides, I should render
my country poor service if I suppressed the ac-
count of the sufferings which she endured.
" There was a certain woman named 24
Mary that dwelt beyond Jordan, whose
father was Eleazer, of the village of Bathezor"
(which signifies the house of hyssop). She was
distinguished for her family and her wealth, and
had fled with the rest of the multitude to Jerusa-
lem and was shut up there with them during
the siege. The tyrants had robbed her of the 25
rest of the property which she had brought
with her into the city from Perea. And the rem-
nants of her possessions and whatever food was
to be seen the guards rushed in daily and
snatched away from her. This made the woman
terribly angry, and by her frequent reproaches
and imprecations she aroused the anger of
the rapacious villains against herself. But 26
no one either through anger or pity would
slay her ; and she grew weary of finding food
for others to eat. The search, too, was already
become everywhere difficult, and the famine was
piercing her bowels and marrow, and resentment
was raging more violently than famine. Taking,
therefore, anger and necessity as her counsellors,
she proceeded to do a most unnatural thing.
Seizing her child, a boy which was sucking 27
at her breast, she said, Oh, wretched child,
in war, in famine, in sedition, for what do I pre-
<" 'Attikuij' Tf<T(Tdpu>i'; the word iprt^M"*"' 's to be supplied. An
Attic drachm, according to some authorities, was equal to about
fifteen cents, according to others (among them Liddell and Scott)
to about nineteen cents.
' Pa9i(u>p. Some MSS. have fiaOexoJp, and the MSS. of Jose-
phus have /3j)0efui|3, which Whiston translates licthezub.
III. 7.]
THE PREDICTIONS OF CHRIST.
141
serve thee ? Slaves among the Romans we shall
be even if we are allowed to live by them. But
even slavery is anticipated by the famine, and
the rioters are more cruel than both. Come, be
food for me, a fury for these rioters,** and a bye-
word to the world, for this is all that is wanting
to complete the calamities of the Jews. And
when she had said this she slew her son ;
28 and having roasted him, she ate one half
herself, and covering up the remainder, she
kept it. Very soon the rioters appeared on the
scene, and, smelling the nefarious odor, they
threatened to slay her immediately unless she
should show them what she had prepared. She
replied that she had saved an excellent portion
for them, and with that she uncovered the
29 remains of the child. They were immedi-
ately seized with horror and amazement,
and stood transfixed at the sight. But she said.
This is my own son, and the deed is mine. Eat,
for I too have eaten. Be not more merciful
than a woman, nor more compassionate than a
mother. But if you are too pious and shrink
from my sacrifice, I have already ^ eaten of
30 it ; let the rest also remain for me. At
these words the men went out trembling, in
this one case being affrighted ; yet with difficulty
did they yield that food to the mother. Forth-
with the whole city was filled with the awful
crime, and as all pictured the terrible deed be-
fore their own eyes, they trembled as if they
31 had done it themselves. Those that were
suffering from the famine now longed for
death ; and blessed were they that had died be-
fore hearing and seeing miseries like these."
32 Such was the reward which the Jews re-
ceived for their wickedness and impiety
against the Christ of God.
CHAPTER VII.
The Predictio?is of Christ
1 It is fitting to add to these accounts the
true prediction of our Saviour in which he
2 foretold these very events. His words are
as follows : ^ " Woe unto them that are with
child, and to them that give suck in those
days ! But pray ye that your flight be not in
the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For
* " In accordance with the idea that the souls of the murdered
tormented, as furies, those who were most guilty of their death "
(Stroth).
^ ri&r). All the MSS. of Eusebius read vfiic. Some of the MSS.
of Josephus read 7J6>), and Rufinus translates «a;« et ego prior
comedi. Valesius, without MS. authority (but apparently with the
support of some MSS. of Josephus, for Whiston translates " one-
half") reads rjnicru, a half, and he is followed by the English and
German translators. Some change from the reading of the MS.S.
of Eusebius is certainly necessary; and though the alteration made
by Valesius produces very good sense and seems quite natural, I
have preferred to accept the reading which is given by many of the
MSS. of Josephus, and which has the support of Rufinus.
1 Matt. xxiv. 19-21.
there shall be great tribulation, such as was not
since the beginning of the world to this time,
no, nor ever shall be."
The historian, reckoning the whole nam- 3
ber of the slain, says that eleven hundred
thousand persons perished by famine and sword,^
and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being
betrayed by each other after the taking of the city,
were slain.'^ But the tallest of the youths and those
that were distinguished for beauty were preserved
for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude,
those that were over seventeen years of age were
sent as prisoners to labor in the works of Egypt,*
while still more were scattered through the prov-
inces to meet their death in the theaters by the
sword and by beasts. Those under seventeen
years of age were carried away to be sold as
slaves, and of these alone the number
reached ninety thousand.^ These things 4
took place in this manner in the second
year of the reign of Vespasian,® in accordance
with the prophecies of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them be-
forehand as if they were already present, and
wept and mourned according to the statement
of the holy evangelists, who give the very words
which he uttered, when, as if addressing
Jerusalem herself, he said : ^ " If thou hadst 5
known, even thou, in this day, the things
which belong unto thy peace ! But now they
are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come
upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart
about thee, and compass thee round, and keep
thee in on every side, and shall lay thee and
thy children even with the ground." And 6
then, as if speaking concerning the people,
he says,^ " For there shall be great distress in
the land, and wrath upon this people. And they
shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be
led away captive into all nations. And Jerusa-
lem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until
the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And
again : ^ " When ye shall see Jerusalem com-
2 Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 9, § 3. Josephus simply says
that the whole number of those that perished during the siege was
1,100,000; he does not specify the manner of their death. On the
accuracy of the numbers which he gives, see above, chap. 5, note 13.
3 Ibid. § 2. _
* ei? TO. (car" ' h.\.yvmov epya. The works meant are the great
stone quarries of Egypt (commonly called the mines of Egypt),
which furnished a considerable part of the finest marble used for
building purposes in Rome and elsewhere. The quarries were
chiefly in the hands of the Roman government, and the work o(
quarrying was done largely by captives taken in war, as in the
present case.
'• Josephus does not say that the number of those sold as slaves
was upward of 90,000, as Eusebius asserts, but simply (Hid. § 3) that
the number of captives taken during the whole war was 97,000, a
number which Eusebius, through an error, applies to the one class
of prisoners that were sold as slaves.
e In B. y. Bk. VI. 8. s and 10. i Josephus puts the completion
of the siege on the eighth of the month Elul (September), and in the
second passage he puts it in the second year of Vespasian. Vespa-
sian was proclaimed emperor in Egypt July i, 69, so that Sept.
8 of his second year would be Sept. 8, a.d. 70. (Cf. Schurer,
iV. T. Zeitgesch. p. 347.)
■^ Luke xix. 42-44.
8 Ibid. xxi. 23, 24. * Ihid. verse 20.
142
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 7.
passed Avith armies, then know that the desola-
tion thereof is nigh."
7 If any one compares the words of our
Saviour with the other accounts of the his-
torian concerning the whole war, how can one
fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowl-
edge and the prophecy of our Saviour were
8 tmly divine and marvellously strange.-'" Con-
cerning those calamities, then, that befell the
whole Jewish nation after the Saviour's passion
and after the words which the multitude of the
Jews uttered, when they begged the release of
the robber and murderer, but besought that the
Prince of life should be taken from their midst,"
it is not necessary to add anything to the
9 account of the historian. But it may be
proper to mention also those events which
exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Provi-
dence which held back their destruction full forty
years after their crime against Christ, — during
which time many of the apostles and disciples,
and James himself the first bishop there, the
one who is called the brother of the Lord,^- were
still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, re-
mained the surest bulwark of the place. Divine
Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering
toward them in order to see whether by repent-
ance for what they had done they might obtain
pardon and salvation ; and in addition to such
long-suffering. Providence also furnished won-
derful signs of the things which were about
to happen to them if they did not repent.
10 Since these matters have been thought
worthy of mention by the historian already
cited, we cannot do better than to recount them
for the benefit of the readers of this work.
CHAPTER VIII.
TJie Signs which preceded the War.
1 Taking, then, the work of this author,
read what he records in the sixth book of
his History. His words are as follows } "Thus
were the miserable people won over at this time
by the impostors and false prophets ; ^ but they
'" It is but right to remark that not merely the negative school
of critics, but even many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss) put the
composition of the Gospel of Luke after the year 70, because its cs-
chatological discourses seem to bear the mark of having been re-
corded after the fulfillment of the prediction, differing as they do
in many minor particulars from the accounts of the same discourses
in Matthew and Mark. To cite a single instance: in the passage
quoted just above from Luke xxi. 20, the armies encompassing Jeru-
salem are mentioned, vt'hile in parallel passages in the other Gospels
(Matt. xxiv. 15 and Mark xiii. 14) not armies, but " the abomina-
tion of desolation standing in the holy place " is spoken of as the
sign. Compare the various commentaries upon these passages.
'1 Compare Acts iii. 14, and see Matt. xvii. 20, Mark xv. 11,
Luke xxii. 18. '^ See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.
1 Josephus, D. 7. Bk. VI. chap. 5. § 3- .
2 (caTai//eu5o(iej'oi ToO (l€ov. In the previous paragraph Josephus
says that a great many false prophets were suborned by the tyrants
to impose on the people. It is to these false prophets therefore that
he refers here, and I have consequently felt at liberty thus to trans-
late the Greek word given above, instead of rendering merely " liars
did not heed nor give credit to the visions and
signs that foretold the approaching desolation.
On the contrary, as if struck by Hghtning, and as
if possessing neither eyes nor understanding,
they slighted the proclamations of God. At 2
one time a star, in form like a sword, stood
over the city, and a comet, which lasted for a whole
year ; and again before the revolt and before the
disturbances that led to the war, when the people
were gathered for the feast of unleavened bread,
on the eighth of the month Xanthicus,^ at the
ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone
about the altar and the temple that it seemed to
be bright day ; and this continued for half an
hour. This seemed to the unskillful a good sign,
but was interpreted by the sacred scribes as por-
tending those events which very soon took
place. And at the same feast a cow, led 3
by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought
forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.
And the eastern gate of the inner temple, 4
which was of bronze and very massive, and
which at evening was closed with difficulty by
twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams,
and had bars sunk deep in the ground, was seen
at the sixth hour of the night to open of
itself. And not many days after the feast, 5
on the twenty-first of the month Artemi-
sium,'* a certain marvelous vision was seen which
passes beUef. The prodigy might seem fabu-
lous were it not related by those who saw it, and
were not the calamities which followed deserv-
ing of such signs. For before the setting of
the sun chariots and armed troops were seen
throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling
through the clouds and encircling the cities.
And at the feast which is called Pentecost, 6
when the priests entered the temple at
night, as was their custom, to perform the ser-
vices, they said that at first they perceived a
movement and a noise, and afterward a voice as
of a great multitude, saying, * Let us go
hence.' ^ But what follows is still more 7
terrible ; for a certain Jesus, the son of
Ananias, a common countryman, four years be-
fore the war," when the city was particularly
against God" (as CrusS does), which is indefinite, and might have
various meanings.
^ The feast referred to is the feast of the Passover. The Greek
name of the month used here is ^(xvOlko^, which was the name of a
Macedonian month corresponding to our April. According to Whis-
ton, Josephus regularly used this name for the Jewish month Nisan
(the first month of the Jewish year), in which case this event took
place six days before the Passover, which began on the 14th of Nisan.
■■ "ApTemcrio?. According to Liddell and Scott, this was a Spar-
tan and Macedonian month corresponding to a part of the ninth
Attic month (J AafftijiSoAiuii'), which in turn corresponded to the
latter part of our March and the early part of April. According to
Wieseler, Josephus used the word to denote the second month of the
Jewish year, the month lyar.
5 The majority of the MSS. of Eusebius read p-iTa^aivoixtv, "we
go hence." R\it at least one of the best MSS. and a majority of the
MSS. of Josephus, supported by Rufinus and Jerome (who render
mi^ri'iiiiis), read [xfTaiia'i.vuiiJ.i\', " let us go hence," and I have fol-
lowed Stcphanus, Valesius, Stroth, and the English and German
translators in adopting that reading.
<; Thai is, in 62 A.U., for, according to Josephus, the war began
III. 9.]
THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS.
143
prosperous and peaceful, came to the feast, at
which it was customary for all to make tents at
the temple to the honor of God," and suddenly
began to cry out : ' A voice from the east, a
voice from the west, a voice from the four winds,
a voice against Jerusalem and the temple, a voice
against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against
all the people.' Day and night he went
8 through all the alleys crying thus. But cer-
tain of the more distinguished citizens,
vexed at the ominous cry, seized the man and
beat him with many stripes. But without utter-
ing a word in his own behalf, or saying anything
in particular to those that were present, he con-
tinued to cry out in the same words as be-
9 fore. And the rulers, thinking, as was true,
that the man was moved by a higher power,
brought him before the Roman governor.** And
then, though he was scourged to the bone, he
neither made supplication nor shed tears, but,
changing his voice to the most lamentable tone
possible, he answered each stroke with the
words, 'Woe, woe unto Jerusalem.'"
10 The same historian records another fact
still more wonderful than this. He says ^
that a certain oracle was found in their sacred
writings which declared that at that time a cer-
tain person should go forth from their country
to rule the world. He himself understood
11 that this was fulfilled in Vespasian. But
Vespasian did not rule the whole world, but
only that part of it which was subject to the
Romans. With better right could it be applied
to Christ ; to whom it was said by the Father,
" Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen
for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth
for thy possession." ^" At that very time, indeed,
the voice of his holy apostles " went throughout
all the earth, and their words to the end of the
world.""
CHAPTER IX.
Josephus and the Works which he has left.
1 After all this it is fitting that we should
know something in regard to the origin and
family of Josephus, who has contributed so much
to the history in hand. He himself gives us in-
formation on this point in the following words : ^
in 66 A.D. A little further on, Josephus says that he continued his
cry for seven years and five months, when he was slain during the
siege of Jerusalem. This shows that he is here, as well as else-
where, reckoning the date of the beginning of the war as 66 a.d.
'' That is, the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth
day of the seventh month of the Jewish year, and continued seven
days.
* This was Albinus, as we should know from the date of the
event, and as Josephus directly states in the context. He was pro-
curator from 61 or 62 to 64 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23, note
35, and chap. 22, note i.
'■^ See Josephus, B. J. VI. 5. 4, and cf. ibid. III. 8. 9.
i» Ps. ii. 8. '1 Ps. xix. 4.
1 B. J., Preface, § i. We have an original source for the life of
Josephus, not only in his various works, in which he makes frequent
" Josephus, the son of Mattathias, a priest of
Jerusalem, who himself fought against the Ro-
mans in the beginning and was compelled to
be present at what happened afterward." He 2
was the most noted of all the Jews of that day,
not only among his own people, but also among
the Romans, so that he was honored by the erec-
tion of a statue in Rome,- and his works were
deemed worthy of a place in the library.^
He wrote the whole of the Antiquities of 3
the Jews * in twenty books, and a history of
the war with the Romans which took place in
his time, in seven books;' He himself testifies
that the latter work was not only written in
Greek, but that it was also translated by himself
reference to himself, but also in his autobiography, which was writ-
ten after the year lOO. The work was occasioned by the Chro/iicle
of Justus of Tiberias, which had represented him as more patriotic
and more hostile to the Romans than he liked, and he therefore felt
impelled to paint himself in the blackest of colors, as a traitor and
renegade, — probably much blacker than he really was. It is de-
voted chiefly to an account of the intrigues and plots formed against
him while he was governor of Galilee, and contains little of general
biographical interest, except in the introduction and the conclusion.
Josephus was of a priestly family, — his father Matthias belonging
to the first of the twenty-four courses, — and he was born in the first
year of Caius Caesar; i.e. in the year beginning March i6, 37 a.d.
He played a prominent part in the Jewish war, being entrusted with
the duty, as governor of Galilee and commander of the forces there,
of meeting and opposing Vespasian, who attacked that province
first. He was, however, defeated, and gave himself up to the vic-
tors, in the summer of 67. He was treated with honor in the camp
of the Romans, whom he serv-ed until the end of the war, and be-
came a favorite and flatterer of the Vespasian house, incurring
thereby the everlasting contempt of his countrymen. He went to
Rome at the close of the war, and lived in prosperity there until
early in the second century. His works are our chief source for a
knowledge of Jewish affairs from the time of the Maccabees, and as
such are, and will always remain, indispensable, and their author
immortal, whatever his character. He was a man of learning and of
talent, but of inordinate selfishness and self-esteem. He was for-
merly accused of great inaccuracy, and his works were considered a
very poor historical source; but later investigations have increased
his credit, and he seems, upon the whole, to have been a historian
of unusual ability and conscientiousness.
- Eusebius is the only one, so far as we know, to mention this
statue in Rome, and what authority there is for Iiis statement we
cannot tell.
3 In § 64 of his Life Josephus tells us that Titus was so much
pleased with his accounts of the Jewish war that he subscribed his
name to them, and ordered them published (see the next chapter,
§ 8 sqq., where the passage is quoted). The first public library in
Rome, according to Pliny, was founded by PoUio (76 B.C.-4 A. p.).
The one referred to here is undoubtedly the irnperial library, which,
according to Suetonius, was originally established by Augustus in
the temple of Apollo on the Palatine, and contained two sections, —
one for Greek, and the other for Latin works. It was greatly en-
larged by Tiberius and Domitian.
* 'louSaiKt) 'ApxatoAoyi'a, Aiitiqnitates JudaiccB. This work,
which is still extant, is Josephus' most extensive work, and aims to
give, in twenty books, a complete history of the Jews, from the time
of Abraham to the beginning of the great war with Rome. The ob-
ject of the work is mainly apologetic, the author aiming to place
Judaism before Gentile readers in as favorable a light as possible.
It contains much legendary matter, but is the main source for our
knowledge of a long period of Jewish history, and as such is invalu-
able. The work was completed, according to his own statement
(XX. II. 2), in the thirteenth year of Domitian (93-94 A.p.), and
frequently corrects erroneous statements made in his earlier work
upon the Jewish war.
^ 'IcTTopta 'Iov6oiKoO TTo\efj.ov TTpbs 'Puifiaiov?, de Bello ^u-
daico. This work, in seven books, constitutes our most complete
and trustworthy source for a knowledge of that great war, so mo-
mentous in its consequences both to Judaism and to Christianity.
The author wrote from personal knowledge of many of the events
described, and had, besides, access to extensive and reliable written
sources; and the general accuracy of the work may therefore be
accepted. He says that he undertook the work for the purpose of
giving a true narrative of the war, in consequence of the many false
and distorted accounts which had already appeared in various quar-
ters. He presented the work, when finished, to Vespasian and
Titus, and obtained their approval and testimony to its trustwor-
thiness; and hence it must have been written during the reign of
Vespasian, probably toward the end of it, as other works upon the
war had preceded his {B. J., Preface, § i).
144
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 9.
into his native tongue.'' He is worthy of credit
here because of his truthfulness in other
4 matters. There are extant also two other
books of his which are worth reading. They
treat of the antiquity of the Jews,' and in them
he replies to Apion the Grammarian, who had at
that time written a treatise against the Jews, and
also to others who had attempted to vilify the
hereditary institutions of the Jewish people.
5 In the first of these books he gives the
number of the canonical books of the so-
called Old Testament. Apparently** drawing his
information from ancient tradition, he shows
what books were accepted without dispute
among the Hebrews. His words are as follows.
CHAPTER X.
TJie Manner in which Josephus mentions the
Divine Books.
1 ^ " We have not, therefore, a multitude of
books disagreeing and conflicting with one
" The work, as Josephus informs us {B. y., Preface, § i; and
contra Apion. I. 9), was written originally in his own tongue, —
Aramaic, — and afterwards translated by himself into Greek, with
the help of others. Eusebius inverts the fact, making the Greek the
original.
' The full title of this work is the Apology of Flavins Josephus
on the Antiquities of the Jews against Apion (Trepl apx^'oTriTos
'lovSaiuiv Kara 'ATri'ioyo;, De Antifuitaie Judieornnt contra Apio-
nein). It is ordinarily cited simply as contra Apionem {Against
Apion). It consists of two books, and is, in fact, nothing else than an
apology for Judaism in general, and to a less extent, a defense of
himself and his former work (the A ntigiiiiies) against hostile critics.
The common title, contra Apionem, is rather misleading, as he is
not once mentioned in the first book, although in the first part of the
second book he is attacked with considerable bitterness and through
him a large class of enemies and detractors of Judaism. (Upon Apion,
the famous Alexandrian and the bitter enemy of the Jews, see above,
Bk. II. chap. 5, note 5.) The work is Josephus' best effort from a
literary point of view, and shows both learning and ability, and in
spite of its brevity contains much of great value. It was written
after his Antiquities (i.e. after 93 A.D.), how long afterward we
cannot tell. These three works of Josephus, with his autobiography
already mentioned (note 1), are all that are extant, although he
seems to have written another work relating to the history of the
Seleucidie (cf. Ant. XIII. 2. i, 2. 4, 4.6, 5. 11) of which not a trace
remains, and which is mentioned by no one else. The other works
planned by Josephus — On God and his Essence {Ant. XX.
II. 3), and On the Laws of the Jews {ibid, and Ant. III. 5. 6,
8. 10) — seem never to have been written. (They are mentioned
also by Eusebius in the next chapter.) Other compositions at-
tributed to him are not from his hand. The best edition of the
works of Josephus is that of Benedict Niese (Berlin, 1885 sq.), of
which the first two volumes have been already issued, comprising
ten books of the A ntiquities. A good complete edition is that of
Dindorf (Paris, 1845-47, 2 vols.). That of Bekker (Leipzig, 1855,
6 vols.) is very convenient. The only complete English translation
is by Whiston, unfortunately uncritical and inaccurate. Traill's
translation of the Jewish War (London, 1862) is a great improve-
ment, but does not cover the remainder of Josephus' works. Upon
Josephus and his writings, see the article of Edersheim in the Diet,
of Christ. Biog. III. 441-460, and compare the literature given
there. ^ ii<ja.v.
' Against Apion, I. 8. The common Christian tradition (since
the first century, when it was stated in the fourth book of Ezra xiv.
44 sq.) is that Ezra was the compiler of the Old Testament canon.
'I'his, however, is a mistake, for the canon was certainly not com-
pleted before the time of Judas Maccabaeus. Josephus is the earli-
est writer to give us a summary of the books of the Old Testament;
and he evidently gives not merely his own private opinion, but the
commonly accepted canon of his day. He does not name the sepa-
rate books, but he tells us that they were twenty-two in number (the
number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet), and gives us the
three divisions, so that we are able to ascertain his canon in detail.
It was doubtless as follows: —
8. Samuel.
another ; but we have only twenty-two, which
contain the record of all time and are justly
held to be divine. Of these, five are by 2
Moses, and contain the laws and the tradi-
i-S. Books of Moses.
6. Joshua.
7. Judges and Ruth.
Twelve Minor Prophets.
Job.
Psalms.
Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes.
Song of Songs.
The earliest detailed list of Old Testament books is that of Melito
(given by Eusebius, IV. 26), which is as follows:
11. Ezra and Nehemiah.
12. Esther.
13. Isaiah.
14. Jeremiah and Lamentations
15. Ezekiel.
16. Daniel.
17-
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Books
of
Moses
' Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
, Deuteronomy.
Joshua Nave.
Judges.
Ruth.
Four of Kings.
Chronicles.
Psalms.
Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes.
Song of Songs.
Job.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Twelve Minor Prophets.
Daniel.
Ezekiel.
Ezra.
Melito says nothing of the number twenty-two, and, m fact, his list,
as he gives it, numbers only twenty-one. His list really differs from
Josephus' only in omitting the Book of Esther. This omission may
be accidental, though it is omitted by Athanasius and Gregory
Nazianzen. He makes no mention of Nehemiah, but that is doubt-
less included with Ezra, as in the case of Josephus' canon. His
canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and hence we should ex-
pect it to be the same as that of Josephus, which makes it more
probable that the omission of Esther was only accidental. Origen
(in Eusebius, VI. 25) tells us that there were twenty-two books in
the Hebrew canon; but his list differs somewhat from that of Jose-
phus. It is as follows: —
-5. Books of Moses.
6. Joshua.
7. Judges and Ruth.
8. Samuel.
9. Kings.
10. Chronicles.
11. Ezra I. and II.
12. Psalms.
13. Proverbs.
14. Ecclesiastes.
15-
16.
17
Prophets
Song of Songs.
[Twelve Minor
(Rufinus).]
, Isaiah.
18. Jeremiah, Lamentations, and
Epistle.
19. Daniel.
20. Ezekiel.
21. Job.
22. Esther.
" Besides these also the Maccabees."
9'
10.
Kings.
Chronicles.
The peculiar thing about the list is the omission of the Twelve
Minor Prophets and the insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah. The
former were certainly looked upon by Origen as sacred books, for he
wrote a commentary upon them (according to Eusebius, VI. 36).
There is no conceivable reason for their omission, and indeed they
are needed to make up the number twenty-two. We must conclude
that the omission was simply an oversight on the part of Eusebius
or of some transcriber. Rufinus gives them as number sixteen, as
shown in the list, but the position there assigned to them is not the
ordinary one. We should expect to find them in connection with
the other prophets; but the various lists are by no means uniform
in the order of the books. On the other hand, the Greek Epistle of
Jeremiah (Baruch vi.) did not stand in the Hebrew canon, and can
have been included by Origen here only because he had been used
to seeing it in connection with Jeremiah in his copy of the LXX.
(for in ancient MSS. of the LXX., which probably represent the
original arrangement, it is given not as a part of Baruch, but as an
appendix to Lamentations), and hence mentioned it in this book
without thinking of its absence from the Hebrew canon. Origen
adds the Maccabees to his list, but expressly excludes them from
the twenty-two books (see Bk. VI. chap. 25, note 5). Meanwhile
the Talmud and the Midrash divide the canon into twenty-four books,
and this was probably the original Jewish division. The number
twenty-two was gained by adding Ruth to Judges and Lamentations
to Jeremiah. The number thus obtained agreed with the number of
letters in the alphabet, and was therefore accepted as the number
sanctioned by divine authority, and the division was commonly
adopted by the early Fathers. This is Strack's view, and seems
better than the opposite opinion, which is advocated by many, that
the number twenty-two was the original. It is easier to see how
twenty-four might be changed to twenty-two than how the reverse
should happen. So, for instance, Jerome, in his preface to the trans-
lation of Samuel and Kings, makes the number twenty-two, and
gives a list which agrees with the canon of Josephus except in the
three general divisions, which are dilTcrently composed. It will be
seen that these various lists (with the exception of that of Origen,
which includes the Epistle of Jeremiah and appends the Maccibees)
include only the books of our canon. But the LXX. prints with the
Old Testament a number of Books which we call Apocrypha and ex-
clude from the canon. It has been commonly supposed, therefore,
that there was a regular Alexandrian canon differing from the Pales-
tinian. But this is not likely. An examination of Philo's use of the
Old Testament shows us that his canon agreed with that of Josephus,
III. 10.]
JOSEPHUS' OLD TESTAMENT CANON.
145
tion respecting the origin of man, and continue
the history- down to his own death. This
period embraces nearly three thousand
3 years.^ From the death of Moses to the
death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes
as king of Persia, the prophets that followed
Moses wrote the history of their own times in
thirteen books.'* The other four books contain
hymns to God, and precepts for the regula-
4 tion of the life of men. From the time of
Artaxerxes to our own day all the events
have been recorded, but the accounts are not
worthy of the same confidence that we repose
in those which preceded them, because there
has not been during this time an exact
5 succession of prophets."' How much we
comprising no apocryphal books. It is probable in fact that the
LXX. included in their translation these other books which were
held in high esteem, without intending to deliver any utterance as
to the extent of the canon or to alter the common Jewish canon by
d-:claring these a part of it. Rut however that was, the use of the
LXX., which was much wider than that of the Hebrew, brought
these books into general use, and thus we see them gradually acquir-
ing canonical atithority and used as a part of the canon by Augus-
tine and later Fathers. Jerome was the only one in the West to
utter a protest against such use of them. Both Athanasius and
Cyril of Jerusalem added to the canon Baruch and the Epistle of
Jeremiah; but opinion in the Orient was mostly against making any
books not in the Hebrew canon of canonical authority, and from the
fourth century the Eastern Fathers used them less and less. They
were, however, officially recognized as a part of the canon by numer-
ous medieval and modern synods until 1839, when the larger Cate-
chism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the most authorita-
tive standard of the GrEeco-Russian Church, expressly excluded them.
The Latin Church, meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha as
canonical, and by its action at the Council of Trent has made them
a part of the official canon. See Strack's article in Herzog, trans-
lated in SchafiT-Herzog; also Harman's Introduction to the Holy
Scripture, p. 33 sqq. The subject is discussed in all Old Testa-
ment introductions.
- Literally, " the tradition respecting the origin of man (di/Spto-
Troyovia.%) down to his own death." I have felt it necessary to in-
sert the words, " and continue the history," which are not found in
the Greek, but which are implied in the words, " down to his own
death."
•* Among the Jews in the lime of Christ a world's era was in use,
dating from the creation of the world; and it is this era which Jose-
phus employs here and throughout his Antiquities. His figures
are often quite inconsistent, — probably owing, in large part, to the
corrupt state of the existing text, — and the confusion which results
is considerable. See Destinon's Clironologie des Josepkies.
* These thirteen books were: —
I. Joshua
Judges and Ruth.
Samuel.
Kings.
Chronicles.
Ezra and Nehemiah.
Esther.
9-
10.
II.
13.
13-
Isaiah.
Jeremiah and Lamentations.
Ezekiel.
Daniel.
Twelve Minor Prophets.
Job.
3-
4-
5-
6.
7-
As will be seen, Josephus divided the canon into three parts: first,
the Law (five books of Moses) ; second, the Prophets (the thirteen
just mentioned) ; third, the Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle-
siastes, and Canticles). The division of the canon into three such
parts is older than Josephus; at the same time, his division is quite
diiiferent from any other division known. Jerome's is as follows: —
1. Law: five books of Moses.
2. Prophets : Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah,
Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets (eight
books) .
3. Hagiographa (Holy writings) : Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle-
siastes. Canticles, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books).
The division which exists in our Hebrew Bibles differs from this of
JeroiTie's only in transferring Ruth and Lamentations to the third
division, and thus making twenty-four books. This is held by many
to be a later form, as remarked above, but as Strack shows, it is
rather the original. In the LXX., which is followed in our Eng-
lish Bible, the books are arranged, without reference to the three
divisions, solely according to their subject-matter. The peculiar
division of Josephus was caused by his looking at the matter from
the historical standpoint, which led him to include in the second
division all the books which contained, as he says, an account of
events from Moses to Artaxerxes.
■"' The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who
reigned B.C. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah
VOL. I.
are attached to our own writings is shown
plainly by our treatment of them. For although
so great a period has already passed by, no one
has ventured either to add to or to take from
them, but it is inbred in all Jews from their very
birth to regard them as the teachings of God,
and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheer-
fully to die for them."
These remarks of the historian I have thought
might advantageously be introduced in this
connection. Another work of no litUe merit 6
has been produced by the same writer. On
the Supremacy of Reason," which some have
called Maccabaicum/ because it contains an
account of the struggles of those Hebrews who
contended manfully for the true religion, as is
related in the books called Maccabees.
And at the end of the twentieth book of 7
his Antiquities * Josephus himself intimates
that he had purposed to write a work in four
books concerning God and his existence, accord-
ing to the traditional opinions of the Jews, and
also concerning the laws, why it is that they per-
mit some things while prohibiting others.^ And
the same writer also mentions in his own
works other books written by himself.^ In 8
addition to these things it is proper to quote
also the words that are found at the close of his
Antiquities,^" in confirmation of the testimony
which we have drawn from his accounts. In
that place he attacks Justus of Tiberias," who,
like himself, had attempted to write a history of
contemporary events, on the ground that he had
not written truthfully. Having brought many
carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished. Mala-
chi — the last of them — uttered his prophecies at the end of Artax-
erxes' or at the beginning of Darius' reign. It was commonly held
among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi the pro-
phetical spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply
drawn, as here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the
Apocrypha who followed them.
8 et? MaKKa^aiovs Aoyo! ij Trepi aiiTOKparopos Koyiaixov: De
Maccabaeis, sen de rationis imperio liber. This book is often
called the Fourth Book of Maccabees, and was formerly ascribed to
Josephus. As a consequence it is printed with his works in many
editions. But it is now universally acknowledged to be spurious,
although who the author is we cannot tell.
' MaKKa/SaiKoc.
8 Ant. XX. II. 3. See the previous chapter, note 7.
9 See the same note.
1" The passage referred to, which is quoted just below, is
found in his Life, § 65, and not in the Aiitiquities. But we can
see from the last paragraph of the Antiquities that he wrote his
Life really as an appendix to that work, and undoubtedly, as Ewald
suggests, issued it with a second edition of the Antiquities about
twenty years after the first. In the MSS. it is always found with the
A ntiquities, and hence the whole might with justice be viewed as
one work. It will be noticed that Eusebius mentions no separate Life
of Josephus, which shows that he regarded it simply as a part of the
A ntiquities.
" Justus of Tiberias was the leader of one of the factions of that
city during the troublous times before the outbreak of the war, while
Josephus was governor of Galilee, and as an opponent he caused
him considerable trouble. He is mentioned frequently in Josephus'
Life, and we are thus enabled to gather a tolerably complete idea
of him — though of course the account is that of an enemy. He
wrote a work upon the Jews which was devoted chiefly to the affairs
of the Jewish war and in which he attacked Josephus very severely.
This work, which is no longer extant, was read by Photius and is
described b)y him in his Bibl. Cod. 33, under the title, j3a<7iAen
'Iou5aiot ot iv T0(9 aTifxtxaai.. It was in consequence of this work
that Josephus felt obliged to publish his Life, which is really little
more than a defense of himself over against the attacks of Justus.
See above, note i.
146
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 10.
other accusations against the man, he continues
in these words : ^^ "I indeed was not afraid
9 in respect to my writings as you were/^' but,
on the contrary, I presented my books to
the emperors themselves when the events were
almost under men's eyes. For I was conscious
that I had preserved the truth in my account,
and hence was not disappointed in my ex-
10 pectation of obtaining their attestation. And
I presented my history also to many others,
some of whom were present at the war, as, for
instance, King Agrippa ^* and some of his
11 relatives. For the Emperor Titus desired
so much that the knowledge of the events
should be communicated to men by my history
alone, that he indorsed the books with his own
hand and commanded that they should be pub-
lished. And King Agrippa wrote sixty-two epis-
tles testifying to the truthfulness of my account."
Of these epistles Josephus subjoins two.^^
12 But this will suffice in regard to him. Let
us now proceed with our history.
CHAPTER XI.
Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after
yaffles.
1 After the martyrdom of James ^ and the
conquest of Jerusalem which immediately
followed,^ it is said that those of the apostles
and disciples of the Lord that were still living
came together from all directions with those
that were related to the Lord according to the
flesh ^ (for the majority of them also were still
12 rv;a, §65.
13 Josephus has just affirmed in a previous paragraph that Justus
had had his History written for twenty years, and yet had not pub-
lished it until after the death of Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa, and
he accuses him of waiting until after their death because he was
afraid that they would contradict his statements. Josephus then
goes on to say in the passage quoted that he was not, like Justus,
afraid to publish his work during the lifetime of the chief actors in
the war.
'■' Agrippa II. See above, Bk. II. chap. 19, note 3. Agrippa
sided with the Romans in the war and was with Vespasian and
Titus in their camp much of the time, and in Galilee made repeated
efforts to induce the people to give up their rebellion, that the war
might be avoided.
'" These two epistles are still extant, and are given by Josephus
in his I'ita, immediately after the passage just quoted by Eusebius.
The first of them reads as follows (according to Whiston's transla-
tion) : " King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear friend, sendeth greeting.
I have read over thy book with great pleasure, and it appears to me
that thou hast done it much more accurately and with greater care
than have tlie other writers. Send me the rest of these books.
Farewell, my dear friend."
1 61 or 62 A.D. .See above, Bk. II. chap. 23.
* See ibid, note 40. The date of Symeon's accession (assuming
that he did take charge of the Jerusalem church as James had
done) cannot be fixed. Eusebius himself, as he informs us in I'k.
IV. chap, s, although he had a list of the Jerusalem bishops, had no
information as to the dates of their accession, or the length of their
incumbency. He puts Symeon's accession after the destruction of
Jerusalem, but he evidently does that only because he supposed that
It followed immediately upon the death of James. Some (e.g. Liyht-
foot) think it probable that Symeon was appointed immediately after
James' death, therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem; others
(e.g. Renan) suppose that in Pella thev had no bishop and ap-
pointed Symeon only after the return of the church to Jerusalem.
* Adyo9 (caTevei. Hegesippus (quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, be-
low) says that " Symeon was appointed the second bishop, whom all
proposed as the cousin of our Lord." Upon what authority Euse-
alive) to take counsel as to who was wor-
thy to succeed James. They all with one 2
consent pronounced Symeon,* the son of
Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes men-
tion,^ to be worthy of the episcopal throne of
that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of
the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that
Clopas was a brother of Joseph."
CHAPTER XIL
Vespasian conunands the Descendants of David
to he sought.
He also relates that Vespasian after the con-
quest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that
belonged to the lineage of David should be
sought out, in order that none of the royal race
might be left among the Jews ; and in conse-
quence of this a most terrible persecution again
hung over the Jews.^
bius' more definite account rests we do not know. He introduces it
with the formula Aoyo; Kariy^n., and we know of no other author
who has put it as he does. It may be that the simple statement of
Hegesippus was the sole ground of the more detailed tradition which
Eusebius repeats in this chapter. The reason of Symeon's appoint-
ment as given by Hegesippus is quite significant. It was the com-
mon Oriental custom to accord the highest honors to all the members
of a prophet's or religious leader's family, and it was undoubtedly
owing chiefly to his close physical relationship to Christ that James
enjoyed such prominence and influence in the Jerusalem church,
apparently exceeding even that of the apostles themselves. _
* This Symeon is to be distinguished from the apostle Simon, the
Canaanite, and also from Simon, the brother of our Lord (mentioned
in Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3). It is noticeable that Hegesippus
nowhere calls him the " brother of the Lord," though he does give
James that title in Bk. II. chap. 23. Clopas is mentioned in John
xix. 25, as the husband of Mary, who is without doubt identical with
Mary the mother of James (the little) and of Joscs, mentioned in
Matt, xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40, &c. If Hegesippus' account be ac-
cepted .as trustworthy (and there is no reason for doubting it), Symeon
was the son of Clopas and Mnry, and therefore brother of James the
Little and Joses. If, then, Alphaeus and Clopas be the same, as many
claim, James the Little is to be identified with James the son of Al-
phaeus, the apostle, and hence the latter was the brother of Symeon.
This identification, however, is entirely arbitrary, and linguistically
difficult, and we shall do better therefore to keep the men separate,
as Renan does (see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14). Upon the
martyrdom of Symeon, see below, chap. 32.
^ In John xix. 25.
" Hegesippus, quoted below in Bk. IV. chap. 22, calls Clopas the
uncle of the Lord, which would make him of course the brother or
brotlier-in-law of Joseph. Eusebius evidently considered them own
brothers. Whether Hegesippus elsewhere stated this directly, or
whether Eusebius' opinion is simply an inference from the words of
Hegesippus already referred to, we do not know. There is no ob-
jection to the conclusion that Clopas and Joseph were own brothers,
although it cannot be proved from Hegesippus' words that tliey were
more than brothers-in-law. From John xix. 25 it is at any rate plain
that their wives cannot have been own sisters, as was formerly main-
tained by so many commentators, ^\'ith the remaining possibilities
of relationship we do not need to concern ourselves.
• It is not certain that Etisebius intends to give Hegesippus as
his authority for the statements of this chapter, inasmuch as he does
not mention his name. He gives the account, however, upon the
authority of some one else, and not as a direct historical statement,
for the verb is in the infinitive, and it is much more natural to
supply 'llyrjcriTrTros iiTTopti, the last words of the preceding chapter,
than to supply any other phrase, such as A0705 K<ni\i\., which
occurs two chapters earlier. The translators are divided as to the
words that arc to be supplied, but it seeins to me beyond doubt that
this account rests upon the same authority as that of the previous
chapter. There is in any case nothing at all unlikely in the report,
as Vespasi.an and his successors kejjt a very close watch upon the
Jews, and this would have been a very natural method of endeavor-
ing to prevent future revolutions. The same course was pursued
also by Domitian; see below, chaps. 19 and 20. We hear from no
other source of a persecution raised against the Jews by Vespasian,
and we may therefore conclude that it cannot have amounted to
much, if indeed it deserves to be called a persecution at all.
III. 17.]
THE PERSECUTION UNDER DOMITIAN.
147
CHAPTER Xni.
Anendetiis, the Second Bishop of Rome.
Afi"ER Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus,
his son, succeeded him.^ In the second year of
his reign, I.inus, who had been bishop of the
church of Rome for twelve years,- dehvered his
oiifice to Anencletus.^ But Titus was succeeded
by his brother Domitian after he had reigned
two years and the same number of months.''
CHAPTER XIV.
Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.
In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus,^
the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died
after holding office twenty-two years, and was
succeeded by Abilius/ the second bishop.
CHAPTER XV.
Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.
In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement
succeeded Anencletus ^ after the latter had been
bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years.
The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians in-
forms us that this Clement was his fellow-worker.
His words are as follows : ^ " With Clement and
the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are
in the book of life."
CHAPTER XVI.
The Epistle of Cle?fient.
There is extant
which is
acknowledged
an epistle of this Clement^
to be genuine and is of
1 Vespasian reigned from July i (if his reign be dated from the
time he was proclaimed emperor in Egypt; if from the death of
Vitellius, Dec. 20), 69, to June 24, 79 a.d.
2 In his Chron. (Armenian) Eusebius gives the length of Linus'
episcopate as fourteen years, while Jerome gives it as eleven years.
Both figures are about equally reliable; see above, chap. 2, note i.
* Of Anencletus, or Cletus, as he is also called, we know nothing
more than that he was one of the traditional first three bishops of
Rome. Hippoiytus makes two bishops, Anencletus and Cletus,
out of the one man, and he is followed by the Roman Catholic
Church (see above, chap. 2, note i). According to chap. 15, An-
encletus held office twelve years.
♦ Titus died Dec. 13, a.d. 81. He therefore reigned two years
and six months, instead of two years and two months as Eusebius
states.
1 85 A.D. ; on Annianus, see above, Bk. H. chap. 24, note 2.
2 'A^iAios. According to one tradition Abilius was ordained
presbyter with his successor Cerdon by Mark himself (see Smith
and Wace). According to another {A p. Const. VII. 46) he was
appointed bishop by Luke. He held office thirteen years according
to chap. 21, below. Valesius claims that the name should be written
Avilius, regarding it as a Latin name, and citing in support of his
opinion the name of a prefect of Egypt, Avilius Flaccus, mentioned
by Philo, and the fact that the name of Avilius' predecessor, Anni-
anus, is also Latin.
' On Anencletus, see chap. 13, note 3.
2 Phil. iv. 3. For an account of Clement, see above, chap. 4,
note ig; and upon the order of succession of the Roman bishops,
see chap. 2, note i.
' This epistle of Clement, which is still extant in two Greek
considerable length and of remarkable merit.'^
He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome
to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had
arisen in the latter church.'^ We know that this
epistle also has been publicly used in a great
many churches both in former times and in our
own.'' And of the fact that a sedition did take
place in the church of Corinth at the time re-
ferred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness,"
CHAPTER XVII.
The Persecution under Domitian.
DoMiTL-iN, having shown great cruelty toward
many, and having unjustly put to death no small
number of well-born and notable men at Rome,
and having without cause exiled and confiscated
the property of a great many other illustrious
men, finally became a successor of Nero in his
hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact
the second that stirred up a persecution against
us,' although his father Vespasian had under-
taken nothing prejudicial to us.^
MSS., and in a Syriac version, consists of fifty-nine chapters, and is
found in all editions of the .'\postolic Fathers. It purports to have
been written from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth,
but bears the name of no author. Unanimous tradition, however
(beginning with Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, IV. 23), ascribes
it to Clement, Bishop of Rome, and scholars, with hardly an excep-
tion, accept it as his work. It was, in all probability, written imme-
diately after the persecution of Domitian, in the last years of the
first century, and is one of the earliest, perhaps the very earliest,
post-biblical works which we have. It was held in very high repute
in the early Church, and in the Alexandrian Codex it stands among
the canonical books as a part of the New Testament (though this is
exceptional; cf. chap. 3, above, and chap. 25, below, in both of
which this epistle is omitted, though Eusebius is giving lists of New
Testament books, both accepted and disputed). We have had the
epistle complete only since 1875, when Bryennios discovered a MS.
containing it and other valuable works. Previously a part of the
epistle had been wanting. In consequence the older editions have
been superseded by the more recent. See appendix to Lightfoot's
edition (1S77), which gives the recovered portions of the text; so,
also, the later editions of Gebhardt and Harnack's, and of Hilgen-
feld's Apostolic Fathers. The epistle is translated in the Atite-
Nicene Fathers, I. p. 5-21.
2 /xcyoiATj T€ Kal 0av|Ltao"ia.
3 See the epistle itself, especially chaps, i and 3. It was these
seditions in the church at Corinth which occasioned the epistle.
* Compare the words of Dionysius of Corinth, in Bk. IV. chap.
23. Though the epistle was held in high esteem, it was not looked
upon as a part of the New Testament canon.
'" Hegesippus' testimony upon this point is no longer extant.
1 The persecutions under Nero and Domitian were not under-
taken by the state as such; they were simply personal matters, and
established no precedent as to the conduct of the state toward
Christianity. They were rather spasmodic outbursts of personal
enmity, but were looked upon with great horror as the first to which
the Church was subjected. There was no general persecution,
which took in all parts of the empire, until the reign of Decius
(249-251), but Domitian's cruelty and ferocity were extreme, and
many persons of the highest rank fell under his condemnation and
suffered banishment and even death, not especially on account of
Christianity, though there were Christians among them, but on
account of his j.alousy, and for political reasons of various sorts.
That Domitian's persecution of the Christians was not of long dura-
tion is testified by Tertullian, Apol. 5. Upon the persecutions of
the Christians, see, among other works, Wieseler's Die Christen-
■z'crfnle^iciigen der Casarcn, hist, iiiid chronolog. untersucht,
1878; "Uhihorn's Der Kavipf des Christeiithums mit detn Heiden-
thiim, English translation by Smyth and Ropes, 1879; andespe-
cially the keen essay of Overbeck, Gesetze der rSmischeji Kaiser
gegen die Christen, in his Studien zur Gesch. der alien Kirche,
I- (1875)-
- The fact that the Christians were not persecuted by Vespasian
is abundantly confirmed by the absence of any tradition to the
opposite effect. Compare Tertullian's Apol. chap. 5, where the
persecutions of Nero and Domitian are recorded.
L 2
148
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 18.
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Apostle John a?id the Apocalypse.
1 It is said that in this persecution the apos-
tle and evangehst John, who was still alive,
was condemned to dwell on the island of Pat-
mos in consequence of his testimony to the
2 divine word.^ Irenaeus, in the fifth book of
his work Against Heresies, where he dis-
cusses the number of the name of Antichrist
which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of
John,- speaks as follows concerning him :
3 ^ " If it were necessary for his name to be
proclaimed openly at the present time, it
would have been declared by him who saw the
revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but
almost in our own generation, at the end of the
reign of Domitian."
4 To such a degree, indeed, did the teach-
ing of our faith flourish at that time that
even those writers who were far from our relig-
ion did not hesitate to mention in their histories
the persecution and the martyrdoms which
5 took place during it.* And they, indeed,
accurately indicated the time. For they
recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian^
Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavins
Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls
of Rome,^ was exiled with many others to the
island of Pontia in consequence of testimony
borne to Christ.
' Unanimous tradition, beginning with Irenseus (V. 30. 3, quoted
just below, and again in Eusebius V. 8) assigns the banishment of
John and the apocalyptic visions to the reign of Domitian. This
was formerly the common opinion, and is still held by some respec-
table writers, but strong internal evidence has driven most modern
scholars to the conclusion that the Apocalypse must have been
written before the destruction of Jerusalem, the banishment there-
fore (upon the assumption that John wrote the Apocalypse, upon
which see chap. 24, note 19) taking place under Nero instead of
Domitian. If we accept this, we have the remarkable phenomenon
of an event taking place at an earlier date than that assigned it by
tradition, an exceptional and inexplicable thing. We have too
the difficulty of accounting for the erroneousness of so early and
unanimous a tradition. The case thus stood for years, until in
1886 Vischer published his pamphlet Die Offcnbaritug des Jo-
Jia/tnes, eine j'udische Apocalypse in Cliristlicher Bearbeitiing
(Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte nnd UntersucJiungen, Band II.
Heft. 3), which if his theory were true, would reconcile external and
internal evidence in a most satisfactory manner, throwing the origi-
nal into the reign of Nero's successor, and the Christian recension
into the reign of Domitian. Compare especially Harnack's appen-
dix to Vischer's pamphlet ; and upon the Apocalypse itself, see
chap. 24, below.
2 Rev. xiii. 18. It will be noticed that Eusebius is careful not to
commit himself here on the question of the authorship of the Apoca-
lypse. See below, chap. 24, note 20.
3 Irenaus, Adv. Hier. V. 30. 3; quoted also below, in Bk. V.
chap. 8.
■• Jerome, in his version of the Ckron. of Eusebius (year of Abr.
2112), says that the historian and chronographer Bruttius recorded
that many of the Christians suffered martyrdom under Domitian.
Since the works of Bruttius are not extant, we have no means of
verifying the statement. Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) relates some of
the banishments which took place under Domitian, among them that
of Flavia Domitilla, who was, as we know, a Christian; Ijut he does
not himself say that any of these people were Christians, nor does he
speak of a persecution of the Christians.
'< We learn from Suetonius {Donit't. chap. 15) that the events
referred to by Eusebius in the next sentence took place at the very
end of Domitian's reign; that is, in the year p6 a.d., the fifteentn
year of his reign, as Eusebius says. Dion Cassius also (LXVII. 14)
puts these events in the same year.
0 Flavins Clemens was a cousin of Domitian, and his wife, Domi-
tilla, a niece of the emperor. They stood high in favor, and their
CHAPTER XIX.
Domitian commands the Descendants of David
to be slain.
But when this same Domitian had commanded
that the descendants of David should be slain,
an ancient tradition says ' that some of the here-
tics brought accusation against the descendants
of Jude (said to have been a brother of the
Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground
that they were of the lineage of David and were
related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates
these facts in the following words.
CHAPTER XX.
The Relatives of our Saviour.
" Of the family of the Lord there were still 1
living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said
to have been the Lord's brother according to
the flesh. ^ Information was given that they
belonged to the family of David, and they 2
were brought to the Emperor Domitian by
the Evocatus.^ For Domitian feared the com-
two sons were designated as heirs to the empire, while Flavins
Clemens himself was made Domitian's colleague in the consulship.
But immediately afterward Clemens was put to death and Domitilla
was banished. Suetonius {Domit, chap. 15) accuses Clemens of
contemtissiino' iiiertice, and Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) of atheism
((ifleoTTjTo?). These accusations are just such as heathen writers of
that age were fond of making against the Christians (compare, for
instance, Athenagoras' Adv. Gent. chap. 4, and Tertullian's Apol.
chap. 42). Accordingly it has been very commonly held that
both Flavins Clemens and Domitilla were Christians, and were pun-
ished on that account. But early tradition makes only Domitilla a
Christian; and certainly if Clemens also — a man of such high rank
— had been a Christian, an early tradition to that effect would be
somewhere preserved. We must, therefore, conclude that his offense
was something else than Christianity. The very silence of Christian
tradition as to Clement is an argument for the truth of the tradition
in regard to Domitilla, and the heathen historians referred to con-
firm its main points, though they differ in minor details. The Acts
o/Martyrdoin o/Ncrcus and Achilles represent Domitilla as the
niece, not the wife, of Flavins Clemens, and Eusebius does the
same. More than that, while the heathen writers report that iJomi-
tilla was banished to the island Pandeteria, these Acts, as well as
Eusebius and Jerome [Ep. adv. Kitstachiioii, Migne's fiA.,Jp.
CVIII. 7), give the island of Pontia as the place of banishnent.
Tillemont and other writers have therefore assumed that there were
two Domitillas, — aunt and niece, — one banished to one island, the
otlier to another. But this is very improbable, and it is easier to
suppose that there was but one Domitilla and but one island, and
that the discrepancies are due to carelessness or to the mistakes of
transcribers. Pandeteria and Pontia were two small islands in the
Mediterranean, just west of central Italy, and were very frequently
employed by the Roman emperors as places of exile for prisoners.
' n-aAaibs KaT^xn Adyo?. It is noticeable that, although Euse-
bius has the written authority of Hegesippus for this account, ha
still speaks of it as supported by " ancient tradition." This is differ-
ent from his ordinary custom, and serves to make us careful in
drawing conclusions as to the nature of Eusebius' authority for any
statement from the expression used in introducing it.
' This Jude was the brother of James, " the brother of the Lord,"
who is mentioned in Jude i, and is to be distinguished from Jude
(Thaddeus-Lebbaeus), one of the Twelve, whose name appears in
the catalogues of Luke (Luke vi. 14 and Acts i. 13) as the son of
James (not his brother, as the A. V. translates; the Greek words
are 'loiJfia? 'laKuifiov). For a discussion of the relationship of these
men to Christ, see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14. Of the son of
Jude and father of the young men mentioned in this chapter we
know nothing.
^ According to Andrew's Lexicon, "An Evocatus was a soldier
who, having served out his time, was called upon to do military duty
as a volunteer."
This suspiciousness is perfectly in keeping with the character of
Domitian. The same thing is told also of Vespasian, in chap. 12;
III. 22.]
DOMITIAN AND THE GRANDSONS OF JUDE.
149
ing of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And
he asked them if they were descendants of
David, and they confessed that they were. Then
he asked them how much property they
had, or how much money they owned. And
both of them answered that they had only
nine thousand denarii/'^ half of which be-
4 longed to each of them ; and this property
did not consist of silver, but of a piece of
land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and
from which they raised their taxes'* and sup-
ported themselves by their own labor." ^
5 Then they showed their hands, exhibiting
the hardness of their bodies and the cal-
lousness produced upon their hands by contin-
uous toil as evidence of their own labor.
6 And when they were asked concerning
Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it
was and where and when it was to appear, they
answered that it was not a temporal nor an
earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic
one, which would appear at the end of the world,
when he should come in glory to judge the quick
and the dead, and to give unto every one
7 according to his works. Upon hearing this,
Domitian did not pass judgment against
them, but, despising them as of no account, he
let them go, and by a decree put a stop to
8 the persecution of the Church. But when
they were released they ruled the churches,
because they were witnesses^ and were also
relatives of the Lord.^ And peace being estab-
lished, they lived until the time of Trajan.
These things are related by Hegesippus.
9 Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian
in the following words : ^ " Domitian also,
who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, at-
tempted once to do the same thing that the
latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some
intelligence,^ he very soon ceased, and even
10 recalled those whom he had banished."
But after Domitian had reigned fifteen
years,^^ and Nerva had succeeded to the empire,
the Roman Senate, according to the writers that
but in his case the political situation was far more serious, and revo-
lutions under the lead of one of the royal family might most natu-
rally be expected just after the terrible destruction. The same act
is also mentioned in connection with Trajan, in chap. 32, and there
is no reason to doubt its truthfulness, for the Jews were well known
as a most rebellious and troublesome people.
3 A denarius was a Roman silver coin, in value about sixteen,
or, according to others, about nineteen, cents.
* " Taxes or tributes were paid commonly in the products of the
land" (Val.).
" Most editors (including Valesius, Heinichen, Cruse, &c.) re-
gard the quotation from Hegesippus as extending through § 8; but
it really ends here, and from this point on Eusebius reproduces the
sense in his own words (and so Bright gives it in his edition). This
is perfectly clear, for in the first place, the infinitive eTriSeiici'iii'ai
occurs in the next sentence, a form possible only in indirect dis-
course; and secondly, as Lightfoot has pointed out, the statement
of § 8 is repeated in chap. 32, § 6, and there in the exact language of
Hegesippus, which differs enough from the language of § 8 to show
that the latter is a free reproduction.
^ /iaprvpa;. On the use of this word, see chap. 32, note 15.
' Compare Renan's Les EvaiigiUs, p. 466.
* Tertullian, Apol. chap, s-
s Ti truretrews. Lat. sed qua et homo.
'• Domitian reigned from Dec. 13, 81 a.d., to Sept. 18, 96.
record the history of those days," voted that
Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that
those who had been unjustly banished should
return to their homes and have their prop-
erty restored to them. It was at this time 11
that the apostle John returned from his
banishment in the island and took up his abode
at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian
tradition.^
CHAPTER XXI.
Cerdoii becomes the Third Ruler of the Church
of Alexandria.
After Nerva had reigned a little more 1
than a year ^ he was succeeded by Trajan.
It was during the first year of his reign that
Abilius,^ who had ruled the church of Alexan-
dria for thirteen years, was succeeded by
Cerdon.^ He was the third that presided 2
over that church after Annianus/ who was
the first. At that time Clement still ruled the
church of Rome, being also the third that held
the episcopate there after Paul and Peter.
Linus was the first, and after him came 3
Anencletus.^
CHAPTER XXII.
Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.
At this time Ignatius ^ was known as the sec-
ond bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the
first." Symeon^ likewise was at that time the
second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the
brother of our Saviour having been the first.
^1 See Dion Cassius, LXVIH. i sq., and Suetonius' Domitian,
chap. 23.
12 Literally, " the word of the ancients among us" (6 tuc vrap'
TUfiXv apxaiMV Adyos). On the tradition itself, see chap, i, note 6.
1 From Sept. i8, 96, to Jan. 27, 98 a.d.
2 On Abilius, see chap. 14, note 2, above.
3 According to the legendary Acis of St. Mark, Cerdo was one
of the presbyters ordained by Mark. According to Eusebius {H.E.
IV. I and Chroit.) he held office until the twelfth year of Trajan.
■* On Annianus, see Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.
5 On the order of succession of the early Roman bishops, see
above, chap. 2, note i. Paul and Peter are here placed together by
Eusebius, as co-bishops of Rome. Compare the association of the
two apostles by Caius, and by Dionysius of Corinth (quoted by
Eusebius, in Bk. II. chap. 25).
1 On Ignatius' life, writings, and martyrdom, see below, chap. 36.
- We cannot doubt that the earliest tradition made Evodius first
bishop of Antioch, for otherwise we could not explain the insertion
of his name before the great name of Ignatius. The tendency would
be, of course, to connect Ignatius directly with the apostles, and to
make him the first bishop. This tendency is seen in Athanasius
and Chrysostom, who do not mention Evodius at all; also in the
Apost. Const. VII. 46, where, however, it is said that Evodius was
ordained by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul (as in the parallel case of
Clement of Rome). The fact that the name of Evodius appears
here shows that the tradition that he was the first bishop seemed to
the author too old and too strong to be set aside. Origen {in Luc.
Horn. VI.) is an indirect witness to the episcopacy of Evodius, since
he makes Ignatius the second, and not the first, bishop of Antioch.
As to the respective dates of the early bishops of Antioch, we know
nothing certain. On their chronology, see Harnack, Die Zeit dcs
Ignatius, and cf. Salmon's article Evodius, in Smith and Wace's
Diet. 0/ Christ. Biog.
' On Symeon, see above, chap. 11, note 4.
I50
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 23.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Narrative coficerning J^ohn the Apostle.
\
At that time the apostle and evangelist
John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still
living in Asia, and governing the churches of
that region, having returned after the death of
Domitian from his exile on the island.^
2 And that he was still alive at that time ^ may
be established by the testimony of two
witnesses. They should be trustworthy who
have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church ;
and such indeed were Irenreus and Clem-
3 ent of Alexandria.^ The former in the sec-
ond book of his work Against Heresies,
writes as follows : ■* " And all the elders that as-
sociated with John the disciple of the Lord in
Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them.
For he remained among them until the
4 time of Trajan." ^ And in the third book
of the same work he attests the same thing
in the following words : ^ " But the cliurch in
Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and
where John remained until the time of Trajan,
is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradi-
5 tion." Clement Hkewise in his book enti-
tled What Rich Man can be saved ?^
indicates the time,^ and subjoins a narrative
1 See chap, i, note 6, and chap. 18, note i.
^ That is, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan.
3 The test of a man's trustworthiness in Eusebius' mind — and
not in his alone — was his orthodoxy. Irenseus has always been
looked upon as orthodox, and so was Clement, in the early Church,
which reckoned him among the saints. His name, Tiowever, was
omitted in the Martyrology issued by Clement VIII., on the ground
that his orthodoxy was open to suspicion.
* Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. II. 22. 5.
^ It is in this immediate connection that Irenaeus makes the ex-
traordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who
were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty
years. A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably
false report might well fall under suspicion; but the fact of John's
continuance at Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by
other passages, and there is no reason to doubt it (cf. chap, i, note
6). Irenseus himself repeats the statement as a well-known fact, in
III. 3, 4 (quoted just below). It may also be said that the opinion
as to Christ's age is founded upon subjective grounds (cf. the pre-
ceding paragraph of Irenaeus) and upon a mistaken interpretation of
John viii. 56, 57, rather than upon external testimony, and that the
testimony (which itself may have been only the result of a subjec-
tive opinion) is dragged in only for the sake of confirming a view
already adopted. Such a fact as John's own presence in Ephesus
at a certain period could hardly be subject to such uncertainty and
to the influence of dogmatic prepossessions. It is significant of
Eusebius' method that he omits entirely Irenaeus' statement as to
the length of Christ's ministry, with which he did not agree (as
shown by his account in Bk. I. chap. 10), while extracting from liis
statement the single fact which he wishes here to establish. The
falsity of the context he must have recognized, and yet, in his re-
spect for Irena:iis, the great maintainer of sound doctrine, he no-
where refers to it. The information which John is said, in this pas-
sage, to have conveyed to the " presbyters of Asia " is that Christ
lived to old age. The whole passage affords an instance of how
much of error may be contained in what, to all appearances, should
be a very trustworthy tradition. Internal evidence must come to
the support of external, and with all its alleged uncertainty and sub-
jectivity, must play a great part in the determination of the truth of
history. '> Adv. Hcer. III. 3, 4.
' Ti? 6 iTM^6nevo<; 7rAou<rio;: Qitis Dhics salveticr. This able
and interesting little treatise upon the proper use of wealth is still
extant, and is found in the various editions of Clement's works;
English translation in the Antc-Nicenc Fathers (Am. ed.), II. p.
591-604. The sound common sense of the book, and its freedom
from undue asceticism are conspicuous, and furnish a pleasing con-
trast to most of the writings of that age.
* He indicates the time only by saying " after the tyrant was
dead," which might refer either to Domitian or to Nero. But the
which is most attractive to those that enjoy hear-
ing what is beautiful and profitable. Take and
read the account which runs as follows : ^
" Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, 6
but a narrative ^^ concerning John the apos-
tle, which has been handed down and treasured
up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's
death,^^ he returned from the isle of Patmos to
Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to
the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to ap-
point bishops in some places, in other places to
set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose
to the ministry some one^^ of those that
were pointed out by the Spirit. When he 7
had come to one of the cities not far away
(the name of which is given by some ^^), and had
consoled the brethren in other matters, he finally
turned to the bishop that had been appointed,
and seeing a youth of powerful physique, of
pleasing appearance, and of ardent tempera-
ment, he said, ' This one I commit to thee in
all earnestness in the presence of the Church
and with Christ as witness.' And when the
bishop had accepted the charge and had prom-
ised all, he repeated the same injunction with an
appeal to the same witnesses, and then de-
parted for Ephesus. But the presbyter,^'* 8
taking home the youth committed to him,
mention of John a little below as " an aged man " would seem to
point to the end of the century rather than to Nero's time. At any
rate, Eusebius understood Clement as referring to Domitian, and in
the presence of unanimous tradition for Domitian, and in the absence
of any counter-tradition, we can hardly understand him otherwise.
^ Quis Dives salveticr, chap. 42.
'" fiiidov oil iJ.v9ov, dAAa oi'Ta Aoyoi'. Clement in these words
asserts the truth of the story which he relates. We cannot regard it
as very strongly corroborated, for no one else records it, and yet we
can hardly doubt that Clement gives it in good faith. It may have
been an invention of some early Christian, but it is sn fully in accord
with what we know of John's character that there exists no reason
for refusing to believe that at least a groundwork of truth underlies
it, even though the story may have gained in the telling of it. It is
certainly beautiful, and fully worthy of the "beloved disciple."
" See note 8.
'2 K\ripio iva ye Tii'a KXrtpuicnoi'. Compare the note of Heinichen
in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. I. p. 122. Upon the use of the word
KAjjpo? in the early Church, see haur's Das Christcntliuin uiid die
christliche Kirche der drci crstcii Jahrhimdcrte, 2d ed., p.
266 sq., and especially Ritschl's Entsicliuiig dcr alt-kath. Kirche,
2d ed., p. 388 sq. Ritschl shows that the word /fAfjpo? was origi-
nally used by the Fathers in the general sense of order or rank {Reihe,
Rang) , and that from this arose its later use to denote church officers
as a class, — the clergy. As he remarks, the word is employed in this
later specific sense for the first time in this passage of Clement's (^iiis
Di7ics salvetiir. Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian are the next
ones to use it in the same sense. Ritschl remarks in connection with
this passage: " Da fur eine Wahl der Gemeindebeamten durch das
Loos alle sonstigen Beweisen fehlen, und da in dem vorliegenden
Satze die Einsetzung von einer Mehrzahl von inicKmroi durch den
Apostel ohne jede Methode erwahnt wird, so falll j--der Grund hin-
weg, dass bei der Wahl einzclner Beamten das Mittel des Loosens
angewandt sein sollte, zumal bei dicser Deutung ein Pleonasmus vor-
ausgesetzt wUrde. Es ist vielmehr zu erklaren, dass Johannes an
einzelnen Orten mehrere Beamte zugleich eingesetzt, an anderen Or-
ten wo schon ein Collegium bestand, dem Beamtenstande je ein Mit-
glied eingereiht habe."
'■' According to Stroth the Chronicon Paschale gives Smyrna
as the name of this city, and it has been suggested tliat Clement
withholds the name in order to spare the reputation of Polycarp,
who, according to tradition, was appointed bishop of that city by
John.
'■' The same man that is called a bishop just above is here called
a presbyter. It is such passages — and they are not vncommon in
the early Eathers — that have seemed to many to demonstrate con-
clusively the original identity of presbyters and bishops, an identity
which is maintained by most Presbyterians, and is admitted by many
Episcopalians (e.g. by Lightfoot in his essay on the Christian Minis-
try, printed in his Commentary on Philippians). On the other
li
TIT. 23.] THE APOSTLE JOHN AND THE YOUNG ROBBER.
151
reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized '"'
him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and
watchfulness, with the idea that in putting upon
him the seal of the Lord '" he had given him
hand, the passages which reveal a distinction between presbyters
and bishops are very early, and are adduced not merely by prela-
ti-ts, but by such disinterested scholars as Harnack (in his trans-
lation of Hatch's Or^aiii'zation of the Early Christian Churches)
a^ proving that there was from the beginning a dilTerence of some
sort between a bishop and a presbyter. I cannot enter here into a
discussion of the various views in regard to the original relation
between bishops and presbyters. I desire simply to suggest a theory
of iny own, leaving the fuller exposition of it for some future time.
My theory is that the word Trpto-pvTepo? was originally employed in
the most general sense to indicate any church officer, thus practi-
cally equivalent to the rjYouMfo? of Hcb. xiii. 17, and the 7roiM»i>'
of Eph. iv. II. The terms fn-4cr<oiro? and StaKovos, on the other
hand, were employed to designate specific church officers charged
with the performance of specific duties. If this were so, we should
expect the general term to be used before the particular designa-
tions, and this is just what we find in the New Testament. We
should expect further that the general term and the specific terms
might be used by the same person in the same context, accord-
ing as he thought of the officers in general or of a particular division
of the officers; on the other hand the general term and one of the spe-
cific terms could never be co-ordinated (we could never find " presby-
ter ^jw^/ bishop," "presbyter and deacon"), but we should expect
to find the specific terms thus co-ordinated (" bishops rt;/!/ deacons ").
An examination of the Epistle to the Philippians, of the Pastoral
Epistles, of Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, and of the Didache
will show that our expectations are fully realized. This theory
explains the fact that so frequently presbyters and bishops seem to
be identical (the general and the specific term might of course in
many cases be used interchangeably), and also the fact that so
frequently they seem to be quite distinct. It explains still further
the remarkable fact that while in the first century we never find a
distinction in official rank between bishops and presbyters, that dis-
tinction appears early in the second. In many churches it must
early have become necessary to appoint some of the officers as a
special committee to take charge of the economic affairs of the con-
gregation. The members of such a committee might very naturally
be given the special name enicrKonoL (see Hatch's discussion of the
use of this word in his work already referred to). In some churches
the duties might be of such a character that the bishops would need
assistants (to whom it would be natural to give the name StaKoro;),
and such assistants would of course be closely associated with the
bishops, as we find them actually associated with them in the second
and following centuries (a fact which Hatch has emphasized). Of
course where the bishops constituted a special and smaller commit-
tee of the general body, entrusted with such important duties, they
would naturally acquire especial influence and power, and thus the
chairman of the committee — the chairman of the bishops as such,
not of the presbyters, though he vnight be that also — would in time,
as a central authority was more and more felt to be necessary, grad-
ually assume the supremacy, retaining his original name eTrio-KoTros.
As the power was thus concentrated in his hands, the committee of
bishops as such would cease to be necessary, and he would require
only the deacons, who should carry out his directions in economic
matters, as we find them doing in the second century. The elevation
of the bishop would of course separate him from the other officers in
such a way that although still a presbyter (i.e. an officer), he would
cease to be called longer by the general name. In the same way
the deacons obliged to devote themselves to their specific duties,
would cease to have much to do with the more general functions of
the other officers, to whom finally the name presbyter — originally
a general term — would be confined, and thus become a distinctive
name for part of the officers. In their hands would remain the
general disciplinary functions which had belonged from the begin-
ning to the entire body of officers as such, and their rank would
naturally be second only to that of the bishop, for the deacons as
assistants only, not independent officers, could not outrank them
(though they struggled hard in the third and fourth centuries to do
so). It is of course likely that in a great many churches the simple
undivided office would long remain, and that bishops and deacons as
specific officers distinguished from the general body would not exist.
But after the distinction between the three orders had been sharply
drawn in one part of Christendom, it must soon spread throughout
the Church and become established even in places where it had not
been produced by a natural process of evolution. The Church
organization of the second century is thus complete, and its further
development need not concern us here, for it is not matter of contro-
versy. Nor is this the place to show how the local church officers
gradually assumed the spiritual functions which belonged originally
to apostles, prophets, and teachers. The Didache is the document
which has shed most light upon that process, and Harnack in his
edition of it has done most to make the matter clear.
15 e</)wTio-e: literally, " enlightened him." The verb (fiwTi^co was
very commonly used among the Fathers, with the meaning " to
baptize." See Suicer's Thesaurus, where numerous examples of
this use of the word by Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, and others,
are given.
i'' Trji' u<(>paylSa Kvpiov. The word cr<t>payi^ was very widely
used in the primitive CJiurch to denote baptism. See Suicer's The-
a perfect protection. But some youths 9
of his own age, idle and dissolute, and ac-
customed to evil practices, corrupted him when
he was thus prematurely freed from restraint.
At first they enticed him by costly entertain-
ments ; then, when they went forth at night for
robbery, they took him with them, and finally
they demanded that he should unite with
them in some greater crime. He gradually 10
became accustomed to such practices, and
on account of the positiveness of his character,'^
leaving the right path, and taking the bit in his
teeth like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse,
he rushed the more violently down into the
depths. And finally despairing of salvation 11
in God, he no longer meditated what was
insignificant, but having committed some great
crime, since he was now lost once for all, he ex-
pected to suffer a Uke fate with the rest. Taking
them, therefore, and forming a band of robbers, he
became a bold bandit-chief, the most violent,
most bloody, most cruel of them all. Time 12
passed, and some necessity having arisen,
they sent for John. But he, when he had set in
order the other matters on account of which he
had come, said, 'Come, O bishop, restore us
the deposit which both I and Christ committed
to thee, the church, over which thou pre-
sidest, being witness.' But the bishop was 13
at first confounded, thinking that he was
falsely charged in regard to money which he had
not received, and he could neither believe the
accusation respecting what he had not, nor could
he disbelieve John. But when he said, ' I de-
mand the young man and the soul of the
brother,' the old man, groaning deeply and at
the same time bursting into tears, said, ' He is
dead.' * Hov/ and what kind of death? ' ' He
is dead to God,' he said ; ' for he turned wicked
and abandoned, and at last a robber. And now,
instead of the church, he haunts the moun-
tain with a band like himself.' But the 14
apostle rent his clothes, and beating his
head with great lamentation, he said, 'A fine
guard I left for a brother's soul ! But let a horse
be brought me, and let some one show me the
way.' He rode away fi-om the church just
as he was, and coming to the place, he was 15
taken prisoner by the robbers' outpost.
He, however, neither fled nor made entreaty,
sartrus for examples. Gregory Nazianzen, in his Orat. XL., gives
the reason for this use of the word: " We call baptism a seal," he
says, " because it is a preservative and a sign of ownership." Chrys-
ostom, in his third Homily on 2 Cor. § 7, says, "So also art thou
thyself made king and priest and prophet in the laver; a king, hav-
ing dashed to earth all the deeds of wickedness and slain thy sins; a
priest, in that thou offerest thyself to God, having sacrificed thy
body and being thyself slain also; ... a prophet, knowing what
shall be, and being inspired by God, and sealed. For as upon sol-
diers a seal, so is also the Spirit put upon the faithful. And if thou
desert, thou art manifest to all. For the Jews had circumcision for
a seal, but we the earnest of the Spirit." [^Nicette and Post-Nicene
Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII. p. 293.)
'7 Literally, " greatness of his nature" (Meye^os <^uo-ews).
152
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 23.
but cried out, ' For this did I come ; lead
16 me to your captain.' The latter, mean-
while, was waiting, armed as he was. But
when he recognized John approaching, he
17 turned in shame to flee. But John, forget-
ting his age, pursued him with all his might,
crying out, ' Why, my son, dost thou flee from
me, thine own father, unarmed, aged ? Pity me,
my son ; fear not ; thou hast still hope of life.
I will give account to Christ for thee. If need
be, I will willingly endure thy death as the Lord
suffered death for us. For thee will I give up
my life. Stand, believe ; Christ hath sent
18 me.' And he, when he heard, first stopped
and looked down ; then he threw away his
arms, and then trembled and wept bitterly. And
when the old man approached, he embraced
him, making confession with lamentations as he
was able, baptizing himself a second time with
tears, and concealing only his right hand.
19 But John, pledging himself, and assuring
him on oath that he would find forgiveness
with the Saviour, besought him, fell upon his
knees, kissed his right hand itself as if now puri-
fied by repentance, and led him back to the
church. And making intercession for him with
copious prayers, and stniggling together with
him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind
by various utterances, he did not depart, as they
say, until he had restored him to the church,
furnishing a great example of true repentance
and a great proof of regeneration, a trophy of a
visible resurrection."
CHAPTER XXIV.
The Order of the Gospels.
1 This extract from Clement I have inserted
here for the sake of the history and for the
benefit of my readers. Let us now point out
the undisputed writings of this apostle.
2 And in the first place his Gospel, which is
known to all the churches under heaven,
must be acknowledged as genuine.^ That it has
1 The testimony of antiquity, — both orthodox and heretical, —
to the authenticity of John's Gospel is universal, with the exception
of a single unimportant sect of the second century, the Alogi, who
denied the Johannine authorship on account of the Logos doctrine,
which they rejected, and very absurdly ascribed the Gospel to the
Gnostic Cerinthus; though its absolute opposition to Cerinthus'
views is so apparent that Irena;us (111. 11. i) even supposed John to
have written the Gospel against Cerinthus. The writings of the sec-
ond century are full of the spirit of John's Gospel, and exhibit frequent
parallels in language too close to be mistaken; while from the last
quarter of the second century on it is universally and expressly as-
cribed to John (Theophilusof Antioch and the Muratorian Fragment
being the first to name him as its author). The Church never enter-
tained a doubt of its authenticity until the end of the seventeenth
century, when it was first questioned by the English Deists; but its
genuineness was vindicated, and only scattering and occasional at-
tacks were made upon it until the rise of tlie Tiibingen school, since
which time its authenticity has been one of the most fiercely con-
tested points in apostolic history. Its opponents h.ave been obliged
gradually to throw back the date of its origin, until now no sensible
critic thinks of assigning it to a time later than the early part of the
with good reason been put by the ancients in
the fourth place, after the other three Gospels,
may be made evident in the following way.
Those great and truly divine men, I mean 3
the apostles of Christ, were purified in their
life, and were adorned with every virtue of the
soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were
confident indeed in their trust in the divine and
wonder-working power which was granted unto
them by the Saviour, but they did not know how,
nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines
of their teacher in studied and artistic language,
but employing only the demonstration of the
divine Spirit, which worked with them, and the
wonder-working power of Christ, which was dis-
played through them, they published the knowl-
edge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the
whole world, paying little attention to the
composition of written works. And this 4
they did because they were assisted in their
ministry by one greater than man. Paul, for in-
stance, who surpassed them all in vigor of expres-
sion and in richness of thought, committed to writ-
ing no more than the briefest epistles,^ although
he had innumerable mysterious matters to com-
municate, for he had attained even unto the sights
of the third heaven, had been carried to the very
paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy
to hear unspeakable utterances there. ^
And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, 5
the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples,
and countless others besides, were not ignorant
of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disci-
ples * of the Lord, only Matthew and John have
left us written memorials, and they, tradition
says, were led to write only under the pres-
sure of necessity. For INIatthew, who had 6
at first preached to the Hebrews, when he
was about to go to other peoples, committed his
Gospel to writing in his native tongue,^ and thus
second century, which is a great gain over the position of Baur and
his immediate followers, who threw it into the latter half of the cen-
tury. See SchalT's Ch. Hist. I. 701-724 for a full defense of its
authenticity and a comprehensive account of the controversy; also
p. 406-411 for the literature of the subject. For the most complete
summary of the external evidence, see Ezra Abbott's The Author-
ship 0/ the Fourth Gospel, 18S0. Among recent works, compare
Weiss' Leben Jesu, I. 84-124, and his N. T. Einleitung, 586-620,
for a defense of the Gospel, and upon the other side Holtzmann's
Einleiiung, 413-460, and Weizsacker's Apost. Zeitalter, p. 531-
558.
2 Overbeck remarks that Eusebius in this passage is the first to
tell us that Paul wrote no more than what we have in the canon.
But this is a mistake, for Origen (quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, be-
low) states it just as distinctly as Eusebius does. The truth is, neither
of them says it directly, and yet it is clear enough when this pass.age
is taken in connection with chapter 3, that it is what Eusebius meant,
and the same idea underlies the statement of the Muratorian Fr.ag-
mcnt. Of course this does not prove that Paul wrote only the epis-
tles which we have (which is indeed contrary to fact), but it shows
what the idea of the early Church was.
" See 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.
■• The majority of the MS.S., followed by Burton, Schweglcr, and
Laemmer, read 5iaTpi^u)i' instead of /liaSrjTMr; and Burton therefore
translates, ii?;/ ^aw^« c.r Iiis omnibus sole lifatthtrus et Joatnies
nobis reliquerunt coiitinentarios de vita et serinotiibus Domini,
" but of all these only Matthew and John have left us commentaries
on the life and conversations of the Lord." Two important MSS.,
however, read tiaO-qjuiv, and this is confirmed by Rufinus and adopt-
ed by Heinichen, Closs, and Crus6.
' That Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew, although denied by
III. 24.]
triE ORDER OE THE GOSPELS.
153
compensated those whom he was obhgcd
7 to leave for the loss of his presence. And
when Mark and Luke had already published
their Gospels," they say that John, who had em-
ployed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel
orally, finally proceedetl to write for the following
reason. The three Gospels already mentioned
liaving come into the hands of all and into his
own too, they say that he accepted them and
bore witness to their truthfulness ; but that there
was lacking in them an account of the deeds
done by Christ at the beginning of his min-
8 istry.^ And this indeed is true. For it is
evident that the three evangelists recorded
only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year
after the imprisonment of John the Baptist,* and
many, is at present the prevailing opinion among scholars, and may-
be accepted as a fact both on account of its intrinsic probability and
of the testimony of the Fathers, which begins with the statement of
Papias, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 39, below, is confirmed by Ire-
naeus (III. i. i, quoted below, V. 8, § 2), — whether independently
of Papias or not, we cannot say, — by Pantaenus (but see below,
Bk. V. chap. 10), by Origen (see below, VI. 25), by Jerome {de vir.
ill. 3), — who says that a copy of it still existed in the library at
Caesarea, — and by Epiphanius {HcPr. XXIX. 9). The question as
to the relation of this Hebrew original to our present Greek Matthew
is much more difficult. That our Greek Matthew is a mere transla-
tion of the original Hebrew was once a prevailing theory, but is now
completely abandoned. That Matthew himself wrote both is a com-
mon conservative position, but is denied by most critical scholars,
many of whom deny him the composition even of the Hebrew orig-
inal. Upon the theory that the original Hebrew Matthew was identi-
cal with the " Gospel according to the Hebrews," see chap. 27, note
8. Upon the synoptic problem, see above, II. 15, note 4; and see
the works mentioned there for a discussion of this original Matthew,
and in addition the recent works by Gla, Origiiml-Sprache des Matt.
Evang., 18S7, and Resch, Agra/>/ta, Leipzig, 1889.
The very natural reason which Eusebius gives for the composi-
tion of Matthew's Gospel — viz. that, when on the point of going to
other nations, he committed it to writing, and thus compensated
them for the loss of his presence — occurs in none of the earlier re-
ports of the composition of the Gospel which we now possess. It
was probably a fact which he took from common tradition, as he re-
marks in the previous sentence that tradition says " they undertook
it from necessity."
'' Upon the date and authorship of the Gospel of Luke, see above,
chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Upon Slark, see Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
' No writer before Eusebius' time, so far as is known, assigned
the reason given by him for the composition of John's Gospel.
Jerome, de znr. ill. chap. 9, repeats the view, combining with it the
anti-heretical purpose. The indefinite expression, " they say," shows
that Eusebius was recording tradition commonly received in his
time, and does not involve the authority of any particular writer.
This object — viz. the supplementing and filling out of the accounts
of the Synoptists — is assumed as the real object by some modern
scholars; but it is untenable, for though the book serves this pur-
pose to a great extent, the author's real aim was much higher, — viz.
the establishment of belief in the Messiahship and divinity of Christ
(John XX. 31 sqq.), — and he chose his materials accordingly. The
Muratorian Fragment says, " The Fourth Gospel is that of John,
one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated
him, he said, ' Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and
let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to us.' On
the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that
John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them
to mind." Irenaius (III. 11. i) supposes John to have written his
Gospel as a polemic against Cerinthus. Clement of Alexandria, in
his Hypotyposcs (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 14), says that John wrote
a spiritual Gospel, as a supplement to the other Gospels, which had
sufficiently described the external facts. The opinion of Eusebius
is very superficial. Upon examination of the Gospels it will be seen
that, of the events which John relates independently of the synop-
tists, but a small portion occurred before the imprisonment of John
the Baptist. John's Gospel certainly does incidentally supplement
the Synoptists in a remarkable manner, but not in any such inten-
tional and artificial way as Eusebius supposes. Compare Weiss'
Einleitiiug, p. 602 sqq., and SchafPs Ch. Hist. II. p. 680 sqq.
** The Synoptic Gospels certainly give the impression that Christ's
public ministry lasted but a single year; and were it not for the ad-
ditional light which John throws upon the subject, the one year
ministry would be universally accepted, as it was by many of the
early Fathers, — e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen,
Lactantius, &c. John, however, expressly mentions three, perhaps
four, passovers, so that Christ's ministry lasted either two or three
years. Upon comparison of the Synoptists with John, it will be
indicated this in the beginning of their ac-
count. For Matthew, after the forty days' 9
fast and the temptation which followed it,
indicates the chronology of his work when he
says : " Now when he heard that John was deliv-
ered up he withdrew from Judea into Gali-
lee." '■* Mark likewise says : " Now after 10
that John was delivered up Jesus came into
Galilee." ^" And Luke, before commencing his
account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks
the time, when he says that Herod, " adding to
all the evil deeds which he had done, shut
up John in prison." " They say, therefore, 11
that the apostle John, being asked to do it
for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of
the period which had been omitted by the earlier
evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour
during that period ; that is, of those which were
done before the imprisonment of the Baptist.
And this is indicated by him, they say, in the
following words : " This beginning of miracles
did Jesus " ; '^ and again when he refers to the
Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as
still baptizing in yEnon near Salim ; ^^ where he
states the matter clearly in the words : " For
John was not yet cast into prison." " John 12
accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds
of Christ which were performed before the Bap-
tist was cast into prison, but the other three
evangelists mention the events which hap-
pened after that time. One who under- 13
stands this can no longer think that the
Gospels are at variance with one another, inas-
much as the Gospel according to John contains
the first acts of Christ, while the others give an
account of the latter part of his life. And the
genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh
John quite naturally omitted, because it had
been already given by Matthew and Luke, and
began with the doctrine of his divinity, which
had, as it were, been reserved for him, as
their superior, by the divine Spirit. ^^ These 14
things may suffice, which we have said con-
cerning the Gospel of John. The cause which led
to the composition of the Gospel of Mark has
been already stated by us.^" But as for Luke, 15
in the beginning of his Gospel, he states
himself the reasons which led him to write it.
seen that the events which they record are not all comprised within
a single year, as Eusebius thought, but that they are scattered over
the whole period of his ministry, although confined to his work iu
Galilee up to the time of his last journey to Judea, six months be-
fore his crucifixion. The distinction between John and the Synop-
tists, as to the events recorded, is therefore rather that of place than
of time; but the distinction is not absolute.
'■> Matt. iv. 12. «' Mark i. 14. " Luke iii. 20.
'2 John ii. II. The arguments of Eusebius, whether origmal or
borrowed from his predecessors, are certainly very ingeniou.s, and
he makes out apparently quite a strong case for his opinion; but a
careful harmony of the four Gospels shows that it is untenable.
13 John iii. 23. '^ 'bid. verse 24.
'■'' Eusebius approaches here the opinion of Clement of Alexan-
dria, mentioned in note 7, above, who considered John's Gospel a
spiritual supplement to the others, — a position which the Gospel
certainly fills most admirably.
18 See Bk. II. chap. is>
154
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 24.
He states that since many others had more
rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the
events of which he had acquired perfect knowl-
edge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing
us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in
his own Gospel an accurate account of those
events in regard to which he had learned the
full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his
stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with
16 the rest of the apostles.^' So much for our
own account of these things. But in a more
fitting place we shall attempt to show by quota-
tions from the ancients, what others have said
concerning them.
17 But of the writings of John, not only his
Gospel, but also the former of his epistles,
has been accepted without dispute both now
and in ancient times.'* But the other two
18 are disputed.^^ In regard to the Apoc-
" See Luke i. 1-4. Eusebiiis puts the case more strongly than
Luke himself. Ltike does not say that others had rashly undertaken
the composition of their narratives, nor does he say that he himself
writes in order to free his readers from the uncertam suppositions of
others; but at the same time the interpretation which Eusebius gives
is, though not an exact, yet certainly a natural one, and we have no
right to accuse him, as has been done, of intentional falsification of
the text of the Gospel. Eusebius also augments Luke's statement
by the mention of the source from which the latter gained his knowl-
edge, viz., " from his intimacy and stay with Paul, and from his ac-
quaintance with the rest of the apostles." If Eusebius intended to con-
vey the impression that Luke said this, he is of course inexcusable, but
we have no reason to suppose this to be the case. It is simply the
explanation on the part of Eusebius of an indefinite statement of
Luke's by a fact which was universally assumed as true. That he
was adding to Luke's own account probably never occurred to him.
He does not pretend to quote Luke's exact words.
^* The testimony to the first Epistle of John goes hand in hand
with that to the fourth Gospel (cf. note i, above). But we can find
still clearer trace of the Epistle in the early part of the second cen-
tury than of the Gospel (e.g. in Polycarp's Epistle, where traces of
the Gospel are wanting; and so, too, in Papias, according to chap.
39, below). The writings of the second century are full of the spirit
of the Epistle as well as of the Gospel, and exhibit frequent parallels
in language too close to be mistaken. The first express testimony
as to its authorship occurs in the Muratorian Fragment. The first
systematic attack upon the Epistle was made by Bretschneider, in
1820, in connection with the attack upon the Gospel. The Tubingen
school likewise rejected both. Before Bretschneider there had been
a few critics (e.g. Lange, 1797) who had rejected the Epistle while
accepting the Gospel, and since then a few have accepted the Epistle
while rejecting the Gospel; but these are exceptional cases. The
Gospel and Epistle have almost universally, and quite rightly, been
regarded as the work of the same author, and may be said to stand
or fall together. Cf. the works cited in note i, and also Westcott's
KpistUs of St. yo/ni. (On the use of vrpdrcpa instead of TrpuirT/, see
p. 388, note.)
''•• "The Muratorian Fragment expressly ascribes two epistles to
John. Citations from the second Epistle appear first in IrenEeus,
though he does not distinguish it from the first. Clement of Alex-
andria (Sirom. II. 15) quotes from i John under the formula " John
says in his larger Epistle," showing that he knew of a second. The
lack of citations from the second and third Epistles is easily explained
by their brevity and the minor importance of their doctrinal contents.
The second and third Epistles belong to the seven A7ii:li'g(i>nena.
Origen cites the first Epistle often, the second and third never, and
of the latter he says " not all agree that they are genuine " (quoted
by Eusebius, VI. 25), and apparently he himself did not consider
them of apostolic origin (cf. Weiss' Eitileitttn^, p. 87). Origen's
treatment of the Catholic Epistles was implicitly followed by his
pupil Dionysius and by succeeding generations. Eusebius himself
does not express his own judgment in the matter, but simply records
the state of tradition which was a mere repetition of Origen's posi-
tion in regard to them. Jerome (^de vir. ill. a and 18) says that
most writers ascribe them to the presbyter John — an opinion
which evidently arose upon the basis of the author's self-designation
in 2 John i, and 3 John i, and some modern critics (among them
Reuss and Wieseler) have done the same. Eusebius himself in the
next chapter implies that such an opinion existed in his day, though
he does not express his own view on the matter. He placed them,
however, among the >4«//7<\C""'""'- (On the presbyter John, see
below, chap. 39, note 4.) That the two epistles fell originally into
the class of Antilegomena was due doubtless to the peculiar self-
designation mentioned, which seemed to distinguish the author from
the apostle, and also to their private and doctrinally unimportant
alypse, the opinions of most men are still di-
vided.-" But at the proper time this question
character. But in spite of the slight external testimony to the epis-
tles the conclusion of Weiss seems correct, that " inasmuch as the
second and third clearly betray the same author, and inasmuch as
the second is related to the first in such a manner that they must
either be by the same author or the former be regarded as an entirely
aimless imitation of the latter, so everything favors the ascription of
them both to the authorof the first, viz. to the apostle." {ibid. p. 469.)
2'* The Apocalypse is one of the best authenticated books of the
New Testament. It was used by Papias and others of the earliest
Fathers, and already by Justin Martyr was expressly ascribed to the
apostle John. (Compare also the epistle of the Churches of Lyons
and Vienne, Eusebius, V. i.) Tradition, so far as we have it, is
unanimous (with the exception of the Alogi, an insignificant hereti-
cal sect of the second century, who attributed the Apocalypse as well
as the Gospel to Cerinthus. Caius is not an exception; see below,
chap. 28, note 4) in ascribing the Apocalypse to the apostle John,
until Dionysius of Alexandria, who subjected the book to severe
literary criticism (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 25), and upon the as-
sumption of the genuineness of the Gospel and the first Epistle,
doubted its authenticity on account of its divergence from these
writings both in spirit and in style. He says (VII. 25, § 2) that
some others before him had denied the Johannine authorship and
ascribed the book to Cerinthus, but the way in which he speaks of
them shows that there cannot have been a ruling tradition to that
effect. He may have referred simply to the -Alogi, or he may have
included others of whom we do not know. He himself rejects this
hypothesis, and supposes the books to have been written by some
John, not the apostle (by what John he does not decide), and does
not deny the inspiration and prophetic character of the book. Di-
onysius was led to exercise criticism upon the Apocalypse (which
was as well supported by tradition as any book of the New Testa-
ment) from dogmatic reasons. The supposed sensuous and material-
istic conceptions of the Apocalypse were offensive to the spiritual-
izing tendencies of the Alexandrian school, and the offensiveness
increased with time. Although Dionysius held the work as inspired
and authoritative, yet his position would lead logically to the ex-
clusion of the Apocalypse from the canon, just as Hermas had been
already excluded, although Origen held it to be inspired and authori-
tative in the same sense in which Dionysius held the Apocalypse to
be, — • i.e. as composed by an apostle's pupil, not by an apostle. Apoc-
alyptic literature did not belong properly to the New Testament, but
rather to the prophetic portion of the Old Testament ; but the number
of the Old Testament prophets was already complete (according to
the Muratorian Fragment), and therefore no prophetic writing (e.g.
Hermas) could find a place there; nor, on the other hand, could it be
made a part of the New Testament, for it was not apostolic. The same
was true of the Apocalypse of Peter, and the only thing which kept the
Apocalypse of John in the canon was its supposed apostolic author-
ship. It was received as a part of the New 'Testament not because it
was apocalyptic, but because it was apostolic, and thus the criticism
of Dionysius would lead logically to its rejection from the canon.
John's Apocalypse is the only New Testament book cited by Justin
as ypa4>ri (so also by the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, Eusebius, V.
i), and this because of its prophetic character. It must have been
(according to their opinion) either a true prophecy (and therefore
inspired by the Holy Spirit) or a forgery. Its authenticity being
accepted, the former alternative necessarily followed, and it was
placed upon a line with the Old Testament prophets, i.e. with the
yp-vjiri. After Dionysius' time doubts of its authenticity became
quite widespread in the Eastern Church, and among the doubters
was Eusebius, who evidently wished to ascribe it to the mysterious
presbyter John, whose existence he supposed to be established by
Papias in a passage quoted in chap. 39, § 4, below (compare the note
on the passage) . Eusebius' treatment of the book is hesitating. He
evidently himself discredited its apostolic authority, but at the same
time he realized (as a historian more keenly than Dionysius the theo-
logian) the great weight of external testimony to its authenticity,
and therefore he gives his readers the liberty (in the next chapter)
of putting it either with the //c;«(j/ci''<:'«;//<-«« or with the rdOoi. It
legitimately belonged among the Hoinoloffouinciia, but Donysius'
attitude toward it doubtless led Eusebius to think that it might
at some time in the future be thrown out of the canon, and of cour.sc
his own objections to its contents and his doubts as to its apostolicity
caused him to contemplate such a possibility not without pleasure (see
the next chapter, note i). In chapter 18, above, he speaks of it as the
" so-called " Apocalypse of John, but in other places he repeats many
testimonies in favor of its authenticity (see the next note) , and only in
chapter 39 does he state clearly his own opinion in the matter, which
even there he does not press as a fixed conviction. The reason for
the doubts of the book's genuineness on the part of Eusebius and so
many others lay evidently most of all in objections to the contents
of the book, which seemed to favor chiliasm, and had been greatly
abused for the advancement of the crassest chiliastic views. Many,
like Dionysius of Alexandria, were no doubt influenced also by the
idea that it was impossible that the Gospel and the Apocalypse could
be the works of one author, and they preferred to sacrifice the latter
rather than the former. The book has found objectors in almost
every age of the Church, but has continued to hold its place in the
canon (its position was never disturbed in the Western Church, and
only for some two or three centuries after Eusebius in parts of the
Eastern Church) as an authentic work of the apostle John. The
Tiibingen school exalted the Apocalypse to the honorable position of
IJI. 25.]
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON.
155
likewise shall be decided from the testimony of
the ancients.-'
CHAPTER XXV.
The Divine Scnpiurcs that are accepted and
those that are not}
1 Since we are dealing with this subject
it is proper to sum up the writings of
one of the five genuine monuments of the apostolic age, and from it
as a basis conducted their attacks upon the other Johannine writ-
ings. The more niodcrn critical school is doubtful about it as well
as the rest of the Johannine literature, and the latest theory makes
the Apocalypse a Jewish document in a Christianized form (see
above, chap. 18, note i). Compare especially Holtzmann's Ein-
Icitung, p. 411-413, and Weiss' Ehtleitung, p. 93.
■-'■ See Bk. VII. chap. 25, where Eusebius quotes a lengthy dis-
cussion of the Apocalypse by Dionysius of Ale.xandria. He also
cites opinions favorable to the authenticity of the Apocalypse from
Justin (in IV. iS, below), Theophilus (IV. 24), Ircnasus (V. 8), and
Origen (VI. 25), but such scattered testimonies can hardly be re-
garded as the fultillment of the definite promise which he makes in
this passage.
1 This chapter is the only place in which Eusebius attempts to
treat the canon systematically, and in it he is speaking purely as an
historian, not as a critic. He is endeavoring to give an accurate
statement of the general opinion of the orthodox Church of his day
in regard to the number and names of its sacred books. He does
not, in this passage, apply to the various works any criterion of
canonicity further than their acceptance as canonical by the ortho-
dox Church. He simply records the state of the canon; he does not
endeavor to form a canon. He has nothing to do, therefore, with
the nature and origin of the books which the church accepts. As
remarked by Weiss (^EinleitiDig in das N. T., p. 96), the influence
of Eusebius in the formation of the canon is very commonly over-
estimated. He contributed himself very little; his office was to re-
cord the usage of the church of his age, not to mould it.
The church whose judgment he takes is, in the main, the church
of the Orient, and in that church at this time all the works which we
now call canonical (and only those) were already commonly ac-
cepted, or were becoming more and more widely accepted as such.
From the standpoint, then, of canonicity, Eusebius divided the
works which he mentions in this chapter into two classes: the
canonical (including the Ho»wlogoic>nena and the Aiitilegojiiena)
and the uncanonical (including the vdfloi and the ai'a7rAa(7/LtaTa aipe-
Tt/ciui' ariSpcoi'). But the I'ofJoi he connects much more closely with
the Hoinologoumeiia and Antilegoincna than with the heretical
works, which are, in fact, separated from all the rest and placed in a
class by themselves. What, then, is the relation of the Hoinologou-
iiiena, Antilcgoiiiena, and i-dSot to each other, as Eusebius classi-
fies them? The crucial point is the relation of the I'oSot to the
ai'TiAe-yo^ei'a. Liicke {Ucber dcit N'. T. Km/on dcs Eiisebitts, p.
II sq.) identified the two, but such identification is impossible in this
passage. The passages which he cites to confirm his view prove
only that the word Antilegoinc/ta is commonly employed by Euse-
bius in a general sense to include all disputed works, and therefore,
of course, the v69oi also; that is, the term Antilegouieiia is ordi-
narily used, not as identical with vo^ol, but as inclusive of it. This,
however, establishes nothing as to Eusebius' technical use of the
words in the present passage, where he is endeavoring to draw close
distinctions. Various views have been taken since Lucke's time
upon the relation of these terms to each other in this connection;
but, to me at least, none of them seem satisfactory, and I have been
led to adopt the following simple explanation. The Auiilcgovieiia,
in the narrower sense peculiar to this summary, were works which, in
Eusebius' day, were, as he believed, commonly accepted by the East-
ern Church as canonical, but which, nevertheless, as he well knew,
had not always been thus accepted, and, indeed, were not even then
universally accepted as such. The tendency, however, was distinctly
in the direction of their ever-wider acceptance. On the other hand,
the v69oi. were works which, although they had been used by the
Fathers, and were quoted as -ypatjbr) by some of them, were, at this
time, not acknowledged as canonical. Although perhaps not uni-
versally rejected from the canon, yet they were commonly so re-
jected, apd the tendency was distinctly in the direction of their ever-
wider rejection. Whatever their merit, and whatever their antiquity
and their claims to authenticity, Eusebius could not place them
among the canonical books. The term i-oSoi, then, in this passage,
must not be taken, as it commonly is, to mean spurious or unau-
thentic, but to mean uncanonical. It is in this sense, as against the
canonical Honwlogoitmcna and Aiitilcgomena, that Eusebius, as I
believe, uses it here, and his use of it in this sense is perfectly legiti-
mate. In using it he passes no judgment upon the authenticity of
the works referred to; that, in the present case, is not his concern.
As an historian he observed tendencies, and judged accordingly.
He saw that the authority of the Antilegomoia was on the increase,
that of the i'd9oi on the decrease, and already he could draw a sharp
distinction between them, as Clement of Alexandria could not do a
century before. The distinction drawn has no relation to the au-
the New Testament which have been already
mentioned. First then must be put the holy
quaternion of the Gospels ; - following them
the Acts of the Apostles.'' After this must 2
be reckoned the epistles of Paul ; * next in
thenticity or origin.il authority of the works of the two classes, but
only to their canonicity or uncanonicity at the time Plusebius wrote.
This interpretation will help us to understand the peculiar way
in which Eusebius treats the Apocalypse, and thus his treatment of
it becomes an argument in favor of the interpretation. He puts it,
first, among the Uniiiologouiiicua with an tiye i/>a>'ei», and then
among the i-dOoi with an ei c/javeiTj. No one, so far as I know, has
explained why it should be put among the I'dSot as an alternative
to the Hoinologoumetia, instead of among the Aiitilcgomrna, which,
on the common interpretation of the relation of the classes, might be
naturally expected. If the view presented is correct, the reason is
clear. 'Y\\<^ Aiitilegoinena were those works which liad been dis-
puted, but were becoming more and more widely accepted as canoni-
cal. The Apocalypse could not, inuler any circumstances, fall into
this class, for the doubts raised against it in the orthodox Church
were of recent date. It occupied, in fact, a peculiar position, for
there was no other work which, while accepted as canonical, was
doubted in the present more than in the past. Eusebius then must
either put it into a special class or put it conditionally into two dif-
ferent classes, as he does. If the doubts should become so wide-
spread as to destroy its canonicity, it wotild fall naturally into the
v66oi, for then it would hold the same position as the other works of
that class. As an historian, Eusebius sees the tendency and un-
doubtedly has the idea that the Apocalypse may eventually, like the
other Christian works of the same class (the Shepherd, the Apoca-
lypse of Peter, etc.), become one of the rdfoi, one of the works
which, formerly accepted, is at length commonly denied to be
canonical: and so, as an historian, he presents the alternative.
The Apocalypse was the only work in regard to which any doubt
could exist.
Eusebius' failure to mention explicitly in this passage the Epistle
to the Hebrews, has caused considerable misunderstanding. The
explanation, if the view presented be adopted, is simple. Eusebius
included it, I believe, among the epistles of Paul, and did not espe-
cially mention lit, simply because there was no dispute about its
canonicity. Its Pauline authorship had been widely disputed, as
Eusebius informs us elsewhere, and various theories had been pro-
posed to account for it; but its canonicity had not been doubted in
the orthodox Church, and therefore doubts as to the authorship of
it did not in the least endanger its place among the llomologouinena,
as used here in a technical sense; and since Eusebius was simply
stating the works of each class, not discussing the nature and origin
of those works, he could, in perfect fairness, include it in Paul's
epistles (where he himself believed it belonged) without entering
upon any discussion of it.
Another noticeable omission is that of the Epistle of Clement to
the Corinthians. All efforts to find a satisfactory reason for this are
fruitless. It should have been placed among the I'dflot with the
Epistle of Barnabas, etc., as Eusebius' treatment of it in other pas-
sages shows. It must be assumed, with Holtzmann, that the omis-
sion of it was nothing more nor less than an oversight.
Eusebius, then, classifies the works mentioned in this chapter
upon two principles: first, in relation to canonicity, into the canoni-
cal and the uncanonical; and secondly, in relation to character, into
the orthodox {^Homologouiiicna, Aiitilcgoincna, which are canoni-
cal, and ^'0001, which are uncanonical), and heterodox (which are
not, and never have been, canonical, never have been accepted as
of use or authority). The Hoinologoumetia and Atitilegomena,
then, are both canonical and orthodox, the araTrAacr^aTa oipeTiKw;'
<xr5pil)i' are neither canonical nor orthodox, while the rdOoi occupy
a peculiar position, being orthodox but not canonical. The last-
named are much more closely related to the canonical than to the
heterodox works, because when the canon was a less concrete and
exact thing than it had at length become, they were associated with
the other orthodox works as, like them, useful for edification and
instruction. With the heretical works they had never been asso-
ciated, and possessed in common with them only the negative char-
acteristic of non-canonicity. Eusebius naturally connects them
closely with the former, and severs them completely from the latter.
The only reason for mentioning the latter at all was the fact that
they bore the names of apostles, and thus might be supposed, as
they often had been — by Christians, as well as by unbelievers —
to be sacred books like the rest. The statement of the canon gives
Eusebius an opportunity to warn his readers against them.
Upon Eusebius' New Testament Canon, see especially the work
of Liicke referred to above, also Westcott's Canon p/ the Nru> Tes-
tament, 5th ed., p. 414 sq., Harnack's Lehre der Zivclf Apostcl,
p. 6 sq., Holtzmann's Einleitung in das N.T., p. 154 sq., and
Weiss' Einleitung, p. 92 sq.
The greater part of the present note was read before the Ameri-
can Society of Church History in December, i883, and is printed in
Vol. I. of that Society's papers. New York, 1889, p. 251 sq.
- On INIatthew, see the previous chapter, note 5; on Mark, Bk.
II. chap. IS, note 4; on Luke, Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15; on
John, the previous chapter, note i.
^ See above, chap. 4, note 14.
* See chap. 3, note 16. Eusebius evidently means to include the
156
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Ill- 25.
order the extant former epistle of John/ and
Ukewise the epistle of Peter/ must be main-
tained.^ After them is to be placed, if it really
seem proper, the Apocalypse of John," concern-
ing which we shall give the different opinions
at the proper time.^ These then belong
3 among the accepted writings.^ Among the
disputed writings/" which are nevertheless
recognized " by many, are extant the so-called
epistle of James ^^ and that of Jude,^^ also the sec-
ond epistle of Peter,^'* and those that are called
the second and third of John,''^ whether they
belong to the evangehst or to another person
of the same name. Among the rejected
4 writings ^^ must be reckoned also the Acts of
Paul," and the so-called Shepherd,^^ and the
Apocalypse of Peter,^^ and in addition to these
the extant epistle of IBarnabas,^" and the so-called
Epistle to the Hebrews among Paul's epistles at this point, for he
mentions it nowhere else in this chapter (see above, note i).
" See the previous chapter, note 18.
<> See chap. 3, note i. '''' KvpuiTioi'.
' See the previous chapter, note 20. Upon Eusebius' treatment
in this chapter of the canonicity of the Apocalypse, see note i, above.
* Compare the previous chapter, note 21.
'•> if o/u.oAoyou/aei'ois. i" See the previous chapter,
'" Toil' avTikiyoiJ.ii'ioi'. note 19.
11 yvuypCfjiiov, ^*5 ev rot? v69oi^,
12 See Bk. II. chap. 23, note 46. ^' See above, chap. 3, note 20.
15 See Hid. note 47. i' /ii'c/. note 23.
^* See above, chap. 3, note 4. ^'■' Ibid, note 9.
2" The author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is unknown.
No name appears in the epistle itself, and no hints are given which
enable us to ascribe it to any known writer. External testimony,
without a dissenting voice, ascribes it to Barnabas, the companion
of Paul. But this testimony, although unanimous, is neither very
strong nor very extensive. The first to use the epistle is Clement
of Alexandria, who expressly and frequently ascribes it to Barnabas
the companion of Paul. Origen quotes from the epistle twice, call-
ing it the Epistle of Barnabas, but without expressing any judgment
as to its authenticity, and without defining its author more closely.
Jerome {de vir. ill. 6) evidently did not doubt its authenticity, but
placed it nevertheless among the Apocrypha, and his opinion pre-
vailed down to the seventeenth century. It is difficult to decide
what Eusebius thought in regard to its authorship. His putting it
among the v69oi. here does not prove that he considered it unautheri-
tic (see note i, above) ; nor, on the other hand, does his classing it
among the Antilcgoinena just below prove that he considered it
authentic, but non-apostolic, as some have claimed. Although,
therefore, the direct external testimony which we have is in favor of
the apostolic Barnabas as its author, it is to be noticed that there
must have existed a widespread doubt as to its authenticity, during
the first three centuries, to have caused its complete rejection from
the canon before the time of Eusebius. That this rejection arose
from the fact that Barnabas was not himself one of the twelve apos-
tles cannot be. For apostolic authorship was not the sole test of
canonicity, and Barnabas stood in close enough relation to the apos-
tles to have secured his work a place in the canon, during the period
of its gradual formation, had its authenticity been undoubted. We
m:iy therefore set this inference over against the direct external tes-
timony for Barnabas' authorship. When we come to internal testi-
mDny, the arguments are conclusive against" the Levite Barnabas"
as the author of the epistle. These arguments have been well stated
by Donaldson, in his History of Chyistian Literature, I. p.
204 sqq. Milligan, in Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christ. Biog.,
endeavors to break the force of these arguments, and concludes that
the authenticity of the epistle is highly probable; but his positions
are far from conclusive, and he may be said to stand almost alone
among modern scholars. Especially during the last few years, the
verdict against the epistle's authenticity has become practically
unanimous. Some have supposed the author to have been an un-
known man by the name of Barnabas; but this is pure conjecture.
That the author lived in Alexandria is apparently the ruling opin-
ion, and is quite probable. It is certain that the epistle was writ-
ten between the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) and the time
of Clement of Alexandria; almost certain that it was written be-
fore the building of y'Elia Capitolina; and probable that it was writ-
ten between 100 and 120, though dates ranging all the way from the
beginning of Vespasian's reign to the end of Hadrian's have been,
and are still, defended by able scholars. The epistle is still extant
in a corrupt Greek original and in an ancient Latin translation. It
is contained in all the editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see espe-
cially Gebhardt and Harnack's second edition, 1876, and Hilgenfeld's
edition of 1877). An English translation is given in the Ante-
Teachings of the Apostles ; -^ and besides, as I
said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper,
which some, as I said, reject,"' but which
others class with the accepted books. ^^ And 5
among these some have placed also the
Gospel according to the Hebrews,-'' with which
Niccne Fathers, Vol. I. p. 133 sqq. For the most important litera-
ture, see Schaff', Ch. Hist. II. p. 671 sqq., and Gebhardt and Har-
nack's edition, p. xl. sqq.
21 TMV d7ro(TToAu)v ai Aeyd/uerat StSaxat. The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, \i.ha.yr\ toii" 5ui5cKa aTroaToAuii', a brief document
in sixteen chapters, was published in 1884 by Philotheos Bryennios,
Metropolitan of Nicomedia, from a MS. discovered by him in the
Jerusalem convent in Constantinople in 1873. The discovery threw
the whole theological world into a state of excitement, and the books
and articles upon the subject from America and from every nation
in Europe have appeared by the hundred. No such important find
has been made for many years. The light which the little document
has thrown upon early Church history is very great, while at the
same time the questions which it has opened are numerous and
weighty. Although many points in regard to its origin and nature
are still undecided, the following general positions may be accepted
as practically established. It is composed of two parts, of which the
former (chaps. 1-6) is a redaction of an independent moral treatise,
probably of Jewish origin, entitled the Tivo Ways, which was known
and used in Alexandria, and there formed the basis of other writings
(e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas, chaps. 18-21, and the Ecclesiastical
Canons) which were at first supposed to have been based upon the
Teaching itself. (Bryennios, Hamack, and others supposed that
the Teaching was based upon Barnabas, but this view has never
been widely accepted.) This (Jewish) Two Ways which was in
existence certainly before the end of the first century (how much
earlier we do not know) was early in the second century (if not before)
made a part of a primitive church manual, viz. our present Teach-
ing of the Twelve Apostles. The Two Ways, both before and at
the time of (perhaps after) its incorporation into the Teaching, re-
ceived important additions, partly of a Christian character. The
completed Teaching dates from Syria, though this is denied by
many writers (e.g. by Hamack), who prefer, upon what seem to me
insufficient grounds, Egypt as the place of composition. The com-
pleted Teaching formed the basis of a part of the seventh book of
the Apostolic Constitutions, which originated in Syria in the fourth
century. The most complete and useful edition is that of Schaff
(T'/jc Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 3d ed.. New York,
1889), which contains the Greek text with English translation and a
very full discussion of the work itself and of the various questions
which are affected by its discovery. Harnack's important edition
Die Lehre der zwolff Apostel {Texte und Uniersuchunge}i zur
Gesch. der altchrist. Lit., II. i and 2, 1884) is still the standard
German work upon the subject, though it represents many posi-
tions in regard to the origin and history of the work which have
since been proved incorrect, and which he himself has given up.
His article in Herzog, 2d ed., XVII. 656 sqq. and his Die Apostcl-
Lehre iind die judischen Beiden Wege, 1886, should therefore be
compared with his original work. SchafTs book contains a ver>' com-
plete digest of the literature down to the close of 1888. As to the
position which the Teaching occupied in the canon we know very
little, on account of the very sparing use of it made by the early
Fathers. Clement of Alexandria cites it once as Scripture (vpac^ij),
but no other writer before the time of Eusebius treats it in the same
way, and yet Eusebius' mention of it among the ro^oi shows that it
must have enjoyed a wide circulation at some time and have been
accepted by at least a portion of the Church as a book worthy to be
read in divine service, and thus in a certain sense as a part of the
canon. In Eusebius' time, however, its canonicity had been de-
nied (though according to Athanasius Fcst. Ep. 39, it was still used
in catechetical instruction), and he was therefore obliged to relegate it
to a position among the fdSoi. Upon Eusebius' use of the plural
ScSaxm', see the writer's article in the Andover Review, April,
i885, p. 439 sq.
-'- ix^iTo\>a\.v. See the previous chapter, note 20.
-3 Tois 6/ioAoyoiifiei'Oi5. See note 1, above.
■-< This Gospel, probably composed in Hebrew (Aramaic), is no
longer extant, but we possess a few fragments of it in Greek and
Latin which are collected by Grabe, Spic. I. 15-31, and by Hilgen-
fcld. A''. T. Extra Can. rec. II. The existing material upon which
to base a judgment as to the nature of the lost Gospel and as to its
relation to our canonical gospels is very limited. It is certain, how-
ever, that it cannot in its original form have been a working over of
our canonical Matthew (as many have thought) ; it contains too
many little marks of originality over against our Greek Matthew to
admit of such a supposition. That it was, on the other hand, the
original of which our Greek Matthew is the translation is also im-
possible ; a comparison of its fragments with our Matthew is suffi-
cient to prove this. That it was the original source from which
Matthew and Luke derived their common matter is possible — more
cannot be said. Lipsius (jP/t/. of Christ. Biog. II. 709-712) and
Westcott {Hist, of the Canon, p. 515 sqq.) give the various quota-
tions which are supposed to have been made from it. How many of
them are actually to be traced back to it as their source is not certain.
It is possible, but not certain, that Papias had seen it (see chap. 39,
III. 26.]
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON.
157
those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ
are especially delighted. And all these may
be reckoned among the disputed books.-'
6 But we have nevertheless felt compelled to
give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing
those works which according to ecclesiastical
tradition are true and genuine and commonly
accepted,-" from those others which, although
not canonical but disputed,^ are yet at the same
time known to most ecclesiastical writers — we
have felt compelled to give this catalogue in
order that we might be able to know both these
works and those that are cited by the heretics
under the name of the apostles, including, for
instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter,-** of
Thomas,-"-' of Matthias,™ or of any others besides
note 28), possible also that Ignatius had, but the passage relied on
to establish tlie fact fails to do so (see chap. 36, note 14). It was
probably used by Justin (see Westcott, ibid. p. 516, and Lipsius,
ibid. p. 712), uudoubtedly by Hegesippus (see below, Bk. IV.
chap. 22), and was perhaps known to Panta;nus (see below, Bk. V.
chap. 10, note 8). Clement of Ale.vandria {Strom. II. 9) and
Origen (/« JoJian. II. 6 and often) are the first to bear explicit
testimony to the existence of such a gospel. Eusebius also was
personally acquainted with it, as may be gathered from his references
to it in III. 39 and IV. 22, and from his quotation in (the Syriac
version oO his Tlieophany, IV. 13 (Lee's trans, p. 234), and in the
Greek Tlieophany, § 22 (Migne, VI. 685). The latter also shows
the high respect in which he held the work. Jerome's testimony in
regard to it is very important, but it must be kept in mind that the
gospel had undergone extensive alterations and additions before his
time, and as known to him was very different from the original form
(cf. Lipsius, ibid. p. 711), and therefore what he predicates of it
cannot be applied to the original without limitation. Epiphanius
has a good deal to say about it, but he evidently had not himself seen
it, and his reports of it are very confused and misleading. The
statement of Lipsius, that according to Eusebius the gospel was
reckoned by many among the Hoinologotivtena, is incorrect; iv tov-
Toi? refers rather to the I'of^oi among which its earlier acceptance by
a large part of the Church, but present uncanonicity, places it by
right. Irenseus expressly states that there were but four canonical
gospels {Ad'ii. Hipr. III. 2, 8), so also Tertullian {Adv. Marc. IV.
5), while Clement of Alexandria cites the gospel with the same
formula which he uses for the Scriptures in general, and evidently
looked upon it as, if not quite, at least almost, on a par with the
other four Gospels. Origen on the other hand {in johan. II. 6,
Horn, in Jcr. XV. 4, and often) clearly places it upon a footing
lower than that of the four canonical Gospels. Upon the use of the
gospel by the Ebionites and upon its relation to the Hebrew Gospel
of Matthew, see chap. 27, note 8.
The literature upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews is very
extensive. Among recent discussions the most important are by
Hilgenfeld, in his, Evangelicji nach Hirer Entstehung {x'&^a,'); in
the Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol., 1863, p. 345 sqq.; in his iV. T.
extra Canon, rec. (2d ed. 1884) ; and in his Einlcitnng z. N. T.
(1S75); by Nicholson, The Gospel according' to the Hebrews
(1879) ; and finally, a very thorough discussion of the subject, which
reached me after the composition of the above note, by Handmann,
Das Hebracr-EvangeliiDH (Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte itnd
Untcrsuchungeti, Bd. V. Heft 3, Leipzig, 1888). This work gives
the older literature of the subject with great fullness. Still more
recently Resch's Agrapha {ibid. V. 4, Leipzig, 1889) has come
to hand. It discusses the Gospel on p. 322 sq.
2° rutv avTi.keyoiJ.ivMV, '" 6LVtaixoX.oyriixiva.^ .
2' ovK h'SiadriKov? l^-ev, aKKa. KaX di/TtAeyofiera?. Eusebius, in
this clause, refers to the vodoi, which, of course, while distinguished
from the canonical Aniilegoinena, yet are, like them, disputed, and
hence belong as truly as they to the more general class of A ntiles^o-
7nena. This, of course, explains how, in so many places in his His-
tory, he can use the words I'dSoi and o.fTiAeydiaei'a interchangeably
(as e.g. in chap. 31, § 6). In the present passage the voSoi, as both
uncanonical and disputed, are distinguished from the canonical writ-
ings, — including both the universally accepted and the disputed, —
which are here thrown together without distinction. The point to
be emphasized is that 'ne is separating here the uncanonical from the
canonical, without regard to the character of the individual writings
within the latter class. -' See chap. 3, note 5.
-^ The Gospel of Thomas is of Gnostic origin and tlioroughly
Docetic. It was written probably in the second century. The
original Gnostic form is no longer extant, but we have fragmentary
Catholic recensions of it in both Latin and Greek, from which heret-
ical traits are expunged with more or less care. The gospel con-
tained many very fabulous stories about the childhood of Jesus.
It is mentioned frequently by the Fathers from Origen down, but
always as an heretical work. The Greek text is given by Tischen-
them, and the Acts of yXndrew''^ and John"- and
the other apostles, which no one belonging to
the succession of ecclesiastical writers has
deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
And further, the character of the style is at 7
variance with apostolic usage, and both the
thoughts and the purpose of the things that are
related in them are so completely out of accord
with true orthodoxy that they clearly show them-
selves to be the fictions of heretics.'"' Wherefore
they are not to be placed even among the re-
jected''* writings, but are all of them to be cast
aside as absurd and impious.
Let us now proceed with our history.
CHAPTER XXVI.
Menander the Sorcerer.
Men.\nder,' who succeeded Simon Magus,^ 1
showed himself in his conduct another in-
dorf, p. 36 sqq., and an English translation is contained in the
Antc-iVicene Fathers, VIII. 395-405. See Lipsius in the Did.
of Christ. Biog. II. p. 703-705.
■*" This gospel is mentioned by Origen {Hoin. in Lncam I.),
by Jerome {Prcef. in Matt.), and by other later writers. The
gospel is no longer extant, though some fragments have been pre-
served by Clement of Alexandria, e.g. in Strom. II. 9, Strovi. III.
4 (quoted below in chap. 30), and Strain. VII. 13, which show
that it had a high moral tone and emphasized asceticism. We know
very little about it, but Lipsius conjectures that it was " identical
with the TrapaiSoo-fi? Marfliou which were in high esteem in Gnostic
circles, and especially among the Basilidseans." See Lipsius, ibid.
p. 716.
^1 Eusebius so far as we know is the first writer to refer to these
Acts. But they are mentioned after him by Epiphanius, Philaster,
and Augustine (see Tischendorfs Acta Apost. Apoc. p. xl.). The
Acts of Andrew {Acta Andrcete) were of Gnostic origin and circu-
lated among that sect in numerous editions. The oldest extant
portions (both in Greek and somewhat fragmentary) are the Acts oj
Andrew and Matthew (translated in the Aiite-Niceiie Fathers,
VIII. 517-525) and the Acts of Peter and Andrew {ibid. 526-527).
The Acts and Martyrdotn of the Holy Apostle Atidrew {ibid.
511-516), or the so-called Epistle of the Presbyters and Deacons
of Achaia concerning the Passion of Andrew, is a later work, still
extant in a Catholic recension in both Greek and Latin. The frag-
ments of these three are given by Tischendorf in his Acta Apost.
Apoc. p. 105 sqq. and 132 sqq., and in his Apocal. Apoc. p. i5i sq.
See Lipsius in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. I. p. 30.
5- Eusebius is likewise, so far as we know, the first writer to
refer to these Acts. But they are afterward mentioned by Epipha-
nius, Photius, Augustine, Philaster, &c. (see Tischendorf, ibid. p.
Ixxiii.). They are also of Gnostic origin and extant in a few frag-
ments (collected by Thilo, Fragmenta Actum S. fohaniiis a
Leucio Charino conscriptormn, Halle, 1847). A Catholic extract
very much abridged, but containing clear Gnostic traits, is still extant
and is given by Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 266 sq. (trans-
lated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 560-564).
The last two works mentioned belong to a collection of apocry-
phal Acts which were commonly ascribed to Leucius, a fictitious
character who stands as the legendary author of the whole of this
class of Gnostic literature. From the fourth century on, frequent
reference is made to various Gnostic Acts whose number must have
been enormous. Although no direct references are made to them
before the time of Eusebius, yet apparent traces of them are found
in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, &c., which make it
probable that these writers were acquainted with them, and it may
at any rate be assumed as established that many of them date from
the third century and some of them even from the second century.
See Salmon's article Leucius in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. 111.
703-707, and Lipsius' article in the same work, I. 28.
^■^ aipeTiKo>v avSpuiV avaTrXatT^aTa. ^■* ^v j'opoi?.
t Justin, in the passage quoted just below, is the first one to ted
us about Menander. According to him, he was a Samaritan and a
disciple of Simon Magus, and, like him, deceived many by the prac-
tice of magic arts. Irenaeus {.-Jdv. Hcer. I. 23) gives a somewhat
fuller account of him, very likely based upon Justin's work against
heresies which the latter mentions in his Apol. I. 26, and from which
Irena;us quotes in IV. 6. 2 (at least he quotes from a Contra Mar-
ciotieni, which was in all probability a part of the same work; see
Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22), and perhaps in V. 26. 2. From this ac-
count of Ircnaus that of Eusebius is drawn, and no new particulars are
158
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 26.
strument of diabolical power,^ not inferior to the
former. He also was a Samaritan and carried
his sorceries to no less an extent than his
teacher had done, and at the same time rev-
eled in still more marvelous tales than he. For
he said that he was himself the Saviour, who
had been sent down from invisible ?eons for
2 the salvation of men ; * and he taught that
no one could gain the mastery over the
world-creating angels themselves ^ unless he had
first gone through the magical discipline im-
parted by him and had received baptism from
him. Those who were deemed worthy of this
would partake even in the present life of perpet-
ual immortality, and would never die, but would
remain here forever, and without growing old
become immortal." These facts can be easily
3 learned from the works of Ireneeus.' And
Justin, in the passage in which he mentions
Simon, gives an account of this man also, in the
fjUovving words : * "x-Vnd we know that a certain
Menander, who was also a Samaritan, from the
village of Capparattea,^ was a disciple of Simon,
and that he also, being driven by the demons,
came to Antioch '" and deceived many by his
magical art. And he persuaded his followers
that they should not die. And there are
4 still some of them that assert this." And it
was indeed an artifice of the devil to en-
deavor, by means of such sorcerers, who assumed
the name of Christians, to defame the great mys-
added. Tertullian also mentions Menander {De Am'ina, 23, 50)
and his resurrection doctrine, but evidently knows only what Ire-
nseus has already told; and so the accounts of all the early Fathers
rest wholly upon Justin and Irenaeus, and probably ultimately upon
Justin alone. See Salmon's axlicXc Menaiide}- in the Diet, of Christ.
Biog.
''■ Upon Simon Magus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3.
^ " Instrument of diabolical power," is an embellishment of Euse-
bius' own, quite in keeping with his usual treatment of heretics. It
is evident, however, that neither Justin nor Irenaeus looked upon
Menander with any greater degree of allowance.
■* Simon (Irenseus, I. 23. i) taught that he himself was the Su-
preme Power; but Menander, according to Irenaeus {ibid. § 5) , taught
that the Supreme Power continues unknown to all, but that he him-
self (as Eusebius here says) was sent forth as a saviour for the de-
liverance of men.
'■ He agreed with Simon in teaching that the world was formed
by angels who had taken their origin from the Enncea of the .Su-
preme Power, and that the magical power which he imparted enabled
his followers to overcome these creative angels, as Simon had taught
of himself before him.
'' This baptism (according to Irenaeus " into his own name"),
and the promise of the resurrection as a result, seem to have been
an original addition of Menander's. The exemption from death
taught by Menander was evidently understood by Irenaus, Tertul-
lian {De Anitna, 50), and Eusebius in its physical, literal sense;
but the followers of Menander must of course have put a spiritual
meaning upon it, or the sect could not have continued in existence
for any length of time. It is certain that it was flourishing at the
time of Justin; how much longer we do not know. Justin him-
self does not emphasize the physical element, and he undoubtedly
understood that the immortality taught was spiritual simply. Hege-
sippus (quoted below, in Bk. IV. chap. 22) mentions the Menandri-
anists, but this does not imply that he was himself acquainted with
them, for he draws his information largely from Justin Martyr.
' Irena;us, Adi>. Hter. I. 23. 5. In III. 4. 3 he mentions Me-
nander again, making him the father of all the Gnostics.
» Justin, Apol. I. 26.
" The situation of the village of Capparattea is uncertain. See
Harnack's Qticllen-Kritik dcs C/iasticis/inis, p. 84.
'" Menander's Antiochene activity is reported only by Justin.
It is probable, therefore, that Tertullian used lrena;us alone in writ-
ing his account of Menander, for it is unlikely that both of them
would have omitted the same fact if they drew independently from
Justin.
tery of godliness by magic art, and through them
to make ridiculous the doctrines of the Church
concerning the immortahty of the soul and the
resurrection of the dead.'' But they that have
chosen these men as their saviours have fallen
away from the true hope.
CHAPTER XXVn.
77ie Heresy of the Ebionites}
The evil demon, however, being unable 1
to tear certain others from their allegiance
II Cyril of Jerusalem {Cat. XVIII. i) says that the denial of the
resurrection of the body was a peculiarly Samaritan heresy, and it
would seem therefore that the heresy of these Menandrianists was in
that direction, i.e. that they taught rather a spiritual immortality
and denied a bodily resurrection (as suggested in note 6) ; evidently,
however, this was not Eusebius' idea. He probably looked upon
them as discrediting the Christian doctrine of a resurrection by
teaching a physical immortality, which of course was soon proved
contrary to truth, and which thus, being confounded by the n:as.'-ts
with the doctrines of the Christians, brought the latter also into cf n-
tempt, and threw discredit upon immortality and resurrection of
every kind.
1 The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characieris-
tic was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the
Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, feparaltd
them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christiai s
existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law ar d
the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile
Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for falvatic n
of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish
Christians. With the latter Paul himself had to contend, and as
time went on, and Christianity spread more and more among the
Gentiles, the breach only became wider. In the time of Justin there
were two opposite tendencies among such Christians as still observed
the Jewish law: some wished to impose it upon all Christians;
others confined it to themselves. Upon the latter Justin looks with
charity; but the former he condemns as schismatics (see Dial. c.
Trypho. 47). For Justin the distinguishing mark of such schis-
matics is not a doctrinal heresy, but an anti-Christian principle of
life. But the natural result of these Judaizing tendencies and of the
involved hostility to the apostle of the Gentiles was the ever more
tenacious clinging to the Jewish idea of the Messiah; and as the
Church, in its strife with Gnosticism, laid an ever-increasing stress
upon Christology, the difference in this respect between itself and
these Jewish Christians became ever more apparent, until finally,
left far behind by the Church in its rapid development, they weie
looked upon as heretics. And so in Irenaeus (I. 26. 2) we find a
definite heretical sect called Ebionites, whose Christology is like tfat
of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who reject the apostle Paul, use the
Gospel of Matthew only, and still cUng to the observance cf the
Jewish law; but the distinction which Justin draws between tie
milder and stricter class is no longer drawn: all are classed together
in the ranks of heretics, because of their heretical Christology (cf.
ibid. HI. 21. i; IV. 33. 4; V. i. 3). In Tertullian and Hippolytus
their deviation from the orthodox Christology is still more clearly
emphasized, and their relation to the Jewish law drops still further
into the background (cf. Hippolytus, Phil. VII. 22; X. 18; and
Tertullian, De Came Christi, 14, 18, &c.). So Origcn is ac-
quainted with the Ebionites as an heretical sect, but, with a more
exact knowledge of them than was possessed by Irenaeus, who lived
far away from their chief centre, he distinguishes two classes; bitt
the distinction is made upon Christological lines, and is very differ-
ent from that drawn by Justin. This distinction of Origcn's be-
tween those Ebionites who accepted and those who denied the super-
natural birth of Christ is drawn also by Eusebius (see below, § 3).
Epiphanius {Hcer. XXIX. sqq.) is the first to make two distinct
heretical sects — the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. It has been the
custom of historians to carry this distinction back into apostolic
times, and to trace down to the time of Epiphanius the continuous
existence of a milder party — the Nazarenes — and of a stricter party
— the Ebionites; but this distinction Nitzsch {Dogiiiengescli. \<.
37 sqq.) has shown to be entirely groundless. The division whii ti
Epiphanius makes is different from that of Justin, as well as fn m
that of Origen and Eusebius; in fact, it is doubtful if he himself had
any clear knowledge of a distinction, his reports are so contrad.c-
tory. The Ebionites known to him were most pronounced herelic^:
but he had heard of others who were said to be less heretical, and
the conclusion that they formed another sect was most namr. 1.
Jerome's use of the two words is fluctuating; but it is clear enough
that they were not looked upon by him as two distinct sects. The
word ">Jazarenes " was, in fai:t, in the beginning a general name given
to the Christians of Palestine by the Jens (cf. Acts xxiv. 5), and ns
sucli synonymous with " Ebionites." Upon the later syncretisiic
HI. 27.J
THE EBIONITES.
159
to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible
in a different direction, and so brought them over
to his own purposes. The ancients quite prop-
erly called these men Ebionites, because they
held poor and mean opinions concerning
2 Christ.- For they considered him a plain
and common man, who was justified only
because of his superior virtue, and who was the
fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In
their opinion the observance of the ceremonial
law was altogether necessary, on the ground that
they could not be saved by faith in Christ
3 alone and by a corresponding life.^ There
were others, however, besides them, that were
of the same name,'* but avoided the strange and
absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that
the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy
Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also
refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed,^ being
Ebionism, see Bk. VI. chap. 38, note i. Upon the general subject
of Ebionism, see especially Nitzsch, ibid., and Harnack, Dogmen-
geschiclite, I. p. 226 sqq.
2 The word Ebionite comes from the Hebrew Ji"2Ki which signi-
fies " poor." Different explanations more or less fanciful have been
given of the reason for the use of the word in this connection. It
occurs first in Irenaeus (I. 26. 2), but without a definition of its
meaning. Origen, who uses the term often, gives different ex-
planations, e.g., in Centra Cchum, II. i, he says that the Jewish
converts received their name from the poverty of the law, " for Ebion
signifies /C(7?- among the Jews, and those Jews who have received
Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites." In De Priii.
IV. I. 22, and tlsewhere, he explains the name as referring to the
poverty of their understanding. The explanation given by Eusebius
refers to their assertion that Christ was only a common man, born
by natural generation, and applied only to the first class of Ebionites,
a description of whom follows. For the same name as applied to
the second class (but see note 9) who accepted Christ's supernatural
birth, he gives a different reason at the end of the chapter, the same
which Origen gives for the application of the name to Ebionites in
general. The explanation given in this place is so far as we know
original with Eusebius (something similar occurs again in Epipha-
nius, Hcer. XXX. 17), and he shows considerable ingenuity in thus
treating the name differently in the two cases. The various reasons
do not of course account for the existence of the name, for most of
them could have become reasons only long after the name was in
use. TertuUian {De Pnxscr. Hcer. 33, De Came Christi, 14, 18,
&c.) and HippolytLis (in his Syntagma, — as can be gathered from
Pseudo-Tertullian, A(ii\ Hier. chap. 3, and Epiph. Hcer. XXX., —
and also in his Phil. chap. 23, where he mentions Ebion inciden-
tally) are the first to tell us of the existence of a certain Ebion from
whom the sect derived its name, and Epiphanius and later writers
are well acquainted with the man. But Ebion is a myth invented
simply for the purpose of explaining the origin of Ebionism. The
name Ebionite was probably used in Jerusalem as a designation of
the Christians there, either applied to them by their enemies as a
term of ridicule on account of their poverty in worldly goods, or,
what is more probable, assumed by themselves as a term of honor, —
" the poor in spirit," — or (as Epiphanius, XXX. 17, says the Ebio-
nites of his day claimed) on account of their voluntarily taking pov-
erty upon themselves by laying their goods at the feet of the apostles.
But, however the name originated, it became soon, as Christianity
spread outside of Palestine, the special designation of Jewish Chris-
tians as such, and thus when they began to be looked upon as
heretical, it became the name of the sect.
3 10? /uii) a.v 6ia /.toi-rj; T>/? ei? -rnv y^fn.a-rav nicrTeim koX toi) Kar'
ouTrji' /Siou (Tcuffrjo-ofie^'oi?. The addition of the last clause reveals
the difference between the doctrine of Eusebius' time and the doctrine
of Paul. Not until the Reformation was Paul understood and the
true formula, 5id /j.di'r); t>j? ei? Tuf xpt-TTou TriVTeu)?, restored.
■• Eusebius clearly knew of no distinction in name between these
two classes of Ebionites such as is commonly made between Naza-
renes and Ebionites, — nor did Origen, whom he follows (see note i,
above) .
" That there were two different views among the Ebionites as to
the birth of Christ is stated frequently by Origen (cf. e.g. Contra
Ceis. v. 61), but there was unanimity in the denial of his pre-
existence and essential divinity, and this constituted the essence of
the heresy in the eyes of the Fathers from Irenseus on. Irenseus, as
remarked above (note i), knows of no such difference as Eusebius
here mentions; and that the denial of the supernatural birth even in
the time of Origen was in fact ordinarily attributed to the Ebionites
in general, without a distinction of the two classes, is seen by Ori-
gen's words in his Horn, in Luc. XVII.
God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into
the impiety of the former, especially when they,
like them, endeavored to observe strictly the
bodily worship of the law." These men, 4
moreover, thought that it was necessary to
reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they
called an apostate from the law ; '' and they
used only the so-called Gospel according to the
Hebrews ^ artd made small account of the
rest. The Sabbath and the rest of the dis- 5
cipline of the Jews they observed just like
them, but at the same time, like us, they cele-
brated the Lord's days as a memorial of the
'^ There seems to have been no difference between these two classes
in regard to their relation to the law; the distinction made by Justin
is no longer noticed.
" This is mentioned by Irena;us (I. 26. 2) and by Origen {Coiit.
Cels. V. 65 and Horn, in Jer. XVIII. 12). It was a general char-
acteristic of the sect of the Ebionites as known to the Fathers, from
the time of Origen on, and but a continuation of the enmity to Paul
shown by the Judaizers during his lifetime. But their relations to
Paul and to the Jewish law fell more and more into the background,
as remarked above, as their Christological heresy came into greater
prominence over against the developed Christology of the Catholic
Church (cf. e.g. the accounts of TertuUian and of Hippolytus with
that of Irenaeus).
The "these" (ourot 6e) here would seem to refer only to the
second class of Ebionites; but we know from the very nature of the
case, as well as from the accounts of others, that this conduct was
true as well of the first, and Eusebius, although he may have been
referring only to the second, cannot have intended to exclude the
first class in making the statement.
8 Eusebius ie the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the Gos-
pel according to the Hebrews. Irenseus {Adv. HcEr. I. 26. 2, III.
II. 7) says that they used the Gospel of Matthew, and the fact that
he mentions no difference between it and the canonical Matthew
shows that, so far as he knew, they were the same. But according
to Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius the Gospel according to the
Hebrews was used by the Ebionites, and, as seen above (chap. 25,
note 18), this Gospel cannot have been identical with the canonical
Matthew. Either, therefore, the Gospel used by the Ebionites in
the time of Irenaeus, and called by him simply the Gospel of Mat-
thew, was something different from the canonical Matthew, or else
the Ebionites had given up the Gospel of Matthew for another and a
different gospel (for the Gospel of the Hebrews cannot have been
an outgrowth of the canonical Matthew, as has been already seen,
chap. 25, note 24). The former is much more probable, and the diffi-
culty may be most simply explained by supposing that the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews is identical with the so-called Hebrew Gospel
of Matthew (see chap. 24, note 5) , or at least that it passed among the
earliest Jewish Christians under Alatthew's name, and that Irenseus,
who was personally acquainted with the sect, simply hearing that
they used a Gospel of Matthew, naturally supposed it to be identical
with the canonical Gospel. In the time of Jerome a Hebrew " Gos-
pel according to the Hebrews " was used by the " Nazarenes and
Ebionites" as the Gospel of Matthew (cf. in Matt.YAX. 13; Contra
Pclag. III. 2). Jerome refrains from expressing his own judgment
as to its authorship, but that he did not consider it in its existing
form identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is clear from his
words in de vir. ill. chap. 3, taken in connection with the fact that
he himself translated it into Greek and Latin, as he states in chap. 2.
Epiphanius {Hcer. XXIX. 9) says that the Nazarenes still preserved
the original Hebrew Matthew in full, while the Ebionites (XXX.
13) had a Gospel of Matthew " not complete, but spurious and mu-
tilated " ; and elsewhere (XXX. 3) he says that the Ebionites used
the Gospel of Matthew and called it the " Gospel according to the
Hebrews." It is thus evident that he meant to distinguish the Gos-
pel of the Ebionites from that of the Nazarenes, i.e. the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews from the original Hebrew Matthew. So,
likewise, Eusebius' treatment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
and of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew clearly indicates that he con-
sidered them two different gospels (cf. e.g. his meiition of the former
in chap. 25 and in Bk. IV. chap. 22, and his mention of the latter in
chap. 24, and in Bk. IV. chap. 10). Of course he knew that the
former was not identical with the canonical Matthew, and hence,
naturally supposing that the Hebrew Matthew agreed with the ca-
nonical Matthew, he could not do otherwise than make a distinction
between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Hebrew Mat-
thew, and he must therefore make the change which he did in Ire-
nseus' statement in mentioning the Gospel used by the Ebionites, as
he knew them. Moreover, as we learn from Bk. VI. chap. 17, the
Ebionite Symmachus had written against the Gospel of Matthew (of
course the canonical Gospel), and this fact would only confirm Euse-
bius in his opinion that Irenseus was mistaken, and that the Ebion-
ites did not use the Gospel of Matthew.
But none of these facts militate against the assumption that the
Gospel of the Hebrews in its original form was identical with the
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, or at least passed originally under his
i6o
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
Cni. 27.
6 resurrection of the Saviour.^ Wherefore, in
consequence of such a course they received
the name of Ebionites, which signified the pov-
erty of their understanding. For this is the
name by which a poor man is called among the
Hebrews.^*'
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Cerinthics the Heresiarch.
1 We have understood that at this time
Cerinthus/ the author of another heresy,
name among Jewish Christians. For it is by no means certain that
the original Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew,
and, therefore, lack of resemblance between the Gospel according to
the Hebrews and the canonical Matthew is no argument against its
identity with the Hebrew Matthew. Moreover, it is quite conceiva-
ble that, in the course of time, the original Gospel according to the
Hebrews underwent alterations, especially since it was in the hands
of a sect which was growing constantly more heretical, and that,
therefore, its resemblance to the canonical Matthew may have been
even less in the time of Eusebius and Jerome than at the beginning.
It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew, which Jerome claims to
hive seen in the library at Caesarea {de vir. ill. chap. 3), may have
been an earlier, and hence less corrupt, copy of the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews.
Since the writing of this note, Handmann's work on the Gospel
according to the Hebrews (Das Hebraer-Evatigeh'iiiii, von Ru-
dolf Hmdmann. Von Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte nnd Uiiter-
stichiiiigcn, Bd. V. Heft 3) has come into my hands, and I find that
he denies that that Gospel is to be in any way identified with the
traditional Hebrew Matthew, or that it bore the name of Matthew.
The reasons which he gives, however, are practically the same as
those referred to in this note, and, as already shown, do not prove
that the two were not originally identical. Handmann holds that
the Gospel among the Jewish Christians was called simply " the
Gospel," or some general name of the kind, and that it received from
others the name " Gospel according to the Hebrews," because it
was used by them. This may well be, but does not militate at all
against the existence of a tradition among the Jewish Christians that
Matthew was the author of their only gospel. Handmann makes
the Gospel according to the Hebrews a second independent source of
the Synoptic Gospels, alongside of the "Ur-Marcus," (a theory
which, if accepted, would go far to establish its identity with the
Hebrew Matthew), and even goes so far as to suggest that it is to
be identified with the \6yia. of Papias (cf. the writer's notice of
Handmann's book, in the Presbylerian Review, July, 1889). For
the literature on this Gospel, see chap. 25, note 24. I find that
Resch in his Ag>-apha emphasizes the apocryphal character of the
Gospel in its original form, and m.akes it later than and in part de-
pendent upon our Matthew, but I am unable to agree with him.
^ The question again arises whether Eusebius is referring here
to the second class of Ebionites only, and is contrasting their con-
duct in regard to Sabbath observance with that of the first class, or
whether he refers to all Ebionites, and contrasts them with the Jews.
The subject remains the same as in the previous sentence; but the
persons referred to are contrasted with eKeii'ot, whom they resemble
in their observance of the Jewish Sabbath, but from whom they
differ in their observance of the Lord's day. The most natural in-
terpretation of the Greek is that which makes the ovtol hi refer to
the second class of Ebionites, and the exeu'oi to the first; and yet
we hear from no one else of two sharply defined classes separated
by religious customs, in addition to doctrinal opinions, and it is not
likely that they existed. If this interpretation, however, seems nec-
essary, we m ly conclude that some of them observed the Lord's
day, while others did not, and that Eusebius naturally identified the
former with the more, and the latter with the less, orthodox class,
without any especial information upon the subject. It is easier, too,
to explain Eusebius' suggestion of a second derivation for the name
of Ebionite, if we assume that he is distinguishing here between the
two classes. Having given above a reason for calling the first class
by that name, he now gives the reason for calling the second class
by the same.
1" See note 2.
1 The earliest account which we have of Cerinthus is that of
Irenaeus {Adv. Hier. I. 26. i; cf. III. 3. 4, quoted at the end of this
chapter, and 11. i), .iccording to which Cerinthus, a man educated
in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made
by the supreme God, but by a certain power distinct from him. He
denied the supern.atural birth of Jesus, making him the son of Joseph
and Mary, and distinguishing him from Christ, who descended upon
him at baptism and left him again at his crucifixion. He was thus
Ebionitic in his Christology, but Gnostic in his doctrine of the crea-
tion. He claimed no supernatural power for himself as did Simon
Magus and Menanderj but pretended to angelic revelations, as
recorded by Caius in this paragraph. Irena;us (who is followed by
made his appearance. Caius, whose words we
quoted above,^ in the Disputation which is as-
cribed to him, writes as follows concerning
this man : " But Cerinthus also, by means 2
of revelations which he pretends were writ-
ten by a great apostle, brings before us marvel-
ous things which he falsely claims were shown
him by angels ; and he says that after the resur-
rection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on
earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem
will again be subject to desires and pleasures.
And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he
asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that
there is to be a period of a thousand years ^ for
marriage festivals." * And Dionysius,^ who 3
was bishop of the parish of Alexandria in
our day, in the second book of his work On the
Promises, where he says some things concerning
the Apocalypse of John which he draws from
tradition, mentions this same man in the
following words : '^ " But (they say that) 4
Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was
called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring rep-
utable authority for his fiction, prefixed the
name. For the doctrine which he taught was
this : that the kingdom of Christ will be an
Hippolytus, VII. 21 and X. 17) says nothing of his chiliastic views,
but these are mentioned by Caius in the present paragraph, by
Dionysius (quoted by Eusebius, VII. 25, below), by Theodoret
{Hier. Fab. ll. 3), and by Augustine {Dc Hcer. I. 8), from whicli
accounts we can see that those views were very sensual. The
fullest description which we have of Cerinthus and his followers is
that of Epiphanius (//<yr. XXVIII.), who records a great many
traditions as to his life (e.g. that he was one of the false apostles
who opposed Paul, and one of the circumcision who rebuked Peter
for eating with Cornelius, &c.), and also many details as to his
system, some of which are quite contradictory. It is clear, however,
that he was Jewish in his training and sympathies, while at the same
time possessed of Gnostic tendencies. He represents a position of
transition from Judaistic Ebionism to Gnosticism, and may be re-
garded as the earliest Judaizing Gnostic. Of his death tradition
tells us nothing, and as to his dates we can say only that he lived
about the end of the first century. Irena;us (III. 2. i) supposed
John to have written his gospel and epistle in opposition to Cerin-
thus. On the other hand, Cerinthus himself was regarded by some
as the author of the Apocalypse (see Bk. VII. chap. 25, below),
and most absurdly as the author of the Fourth Gospel also (see
above, chap. 24, note i).
- See Bk. II. chap. 25, § 7. Upon Caius, see the note given
there. The Disputation is the same that is quoted in that passage.
3 Cf. Rev. XX. 4. On chiliasm in the early Church, see below,
chap. 39, note 19.
* It is a commonly accepted opinion founded upon this passage
that Caius rejected the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse and
considered it a work of Cerinthus. But the quotation by no means
implies this. Had he believed that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalypse
commonly ascribed to John, he would certainly have said so plauily,
and Eusebius would just as certainly have quoted his opinion, preju-
diced as he was himself against the Apocalypse. Caius simply
means that Cerinthus abused and misinterpreted the vision of the
Apocalypse for his own sensual purposes. That this is the meaning
is plain from the words " being an enemy to the Divine Scriptures,"
and especially from the fact that in the Johannine Apocalypse itself
occur no such sensual visions as Caius mentions here. The sensu-
ality was evidently superimposed by the interpretation of Cerinthus.
Cf. Weiss' N. T. Einleituvg, p. 82.
'' Upon Dionysius and his writings, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 40,
note I.
'' The same passage is quoted with its context in Bk. VII. chap.
25, below. The verbs in the portion of the passage quoted here are
all in the infinitive, and we see, from Bk. VII. chap. 25, that they
depend upon an indefinite \eyovaiv, " they say "; so that Eusebius
is quite right here in saying that Dionysius is dr.awing from tradition
in making the remarks which he does. Inasmuch as the verbs are
not independent, and the statement is not, therefore, Dionysius' own,
I have inserted, at the beginning of the quotation, the words " they
say that," which really govern all the verbs of the passage. Diony-
sius himself rejected the theory of Cerinthus' authorship of tho
Apocalypse, as may be seen from Bk. VII. chap. 25, § 7.
III. 30.]
THE NICOLAITANS.
i6r
5 earthly one. And as he was himself devoted
to the pleasures of the body and altogether
sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that king-
dom would consist in those things which he
desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and
of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and
drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sac-
rifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise
of which he thought he could indulge his appe-
tites with a better grace." These are the
6 words of Dionysius. But Irenceus, in the
first book of his work Against Heresies,^
gives some more abominable false doctrines of
the same man, and in the third book relates a
story which deserves to be recorded. He says,
on the authority of Polycarp, that the apostle
John once entered a bath to bathe ; but, learning
that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the
place and rushed out of the door, for he could
not bear to remain under the same roof with him.
And he advised those that were with him to do
the same, saying, " Let us flee, lest the bath foil ;
for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." ^
CHAPTER XXIX.
JVicolaus and the Sect named after him.
1 At this time the so-called sect of the
Nicolaitans made its appearance and lasted
for a very short time. Mention is made of it
in the Apocalypse of John.^ They boasted that
' Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. I. 26. i.
8 See ibid. III. 3. 4. This story is repeated by Euseblus, in Bk.
IV. chap. 14. There is nothing impossible in it. The occurrence
fits well the character of John as a " son of thunder," and shows the
same spirit exhibited by Polycarp in his encounter with Marcion
(see below, Bk. IV. chap. 14). But the story is not very well au-
thenticated, as Irenaeus did not himself hear it from Polycarp, but
only from others to whom Polycarp had told it. The unreliability
of such second-hand tradition is illustrated abundantly in the case of
Irenaeus himself, who gives some reports, very far from true, upon
the authority of certain presbyters (e.g. that Christ lived fifty years;
II. 22. 5). This same story, with much more fullness of detail, is
repeated by Epiphanius (^Hicr. XXX. 24) , but of Ebion (who never
existed), instead of Cerinthus. This shows that the story was a
very common one, while, at the same time, so vague in its details as
to admit of an application to any heretic who suited the purpose.
That somebody met somebody in a bath seems quite probable, and
there is nothing to prevent our accepting the story as it stands in
Irenaeus, if we choose to do so. One thing, at least, is certain, —
that Cerinthus is a historical character, who in all probability was,
for at least a part of his life, contemporary with John, and thus
associated with him in tradition, whether or not he ever came into
personal contact with him.
1 Rev. ii. 6, 15. Salmon, in his article Nicolaitans , in the Did.
of Christ. Biog;., states, as I think, quite correctly, that " there
really is no trustworthy evidence of the continuance of a sect so
called after the death of the apostle John "; and in this he is in
agreement with many modern scholars. An examination of extant
accounts of this sect seems to show that nothing more was known of
the Nicolaitans by any of the Fathers than what is told in the Apoc-
alypse. Justin, whose lost work against heretics Irenaeus follows in
his description of heresies, seems to have made no mention of the
Nicolaitans, for they are dragged in by Irenaeus at the close of the
text, quite out of their chronological place. Irenaeus (I. 26. 3; III.
II. i) seems to have made up his account from the Apocalypse, and
to have been the sole source for later writers upon this subject.
That the sect was licentious is told us by the Apocalypse. That
Nicolas, one of the Seven, was their founder is stated by Irenaeus (I.
26. 3), Hippolytus (VII. 24), Pseudo-TertuUian {Adv. omnes HiFr.
chap, i), and Epiphanius {Hi^r. 25), the last two undoubtedly
drawing their account from Hippolytus, and he in turn from Ire-
naeus. Jerome and the writers of his time and later accept this view,
believing that Nicolas became licentious and fell into the greatest
VOL. I. M
the author of their sect was Nicolaus, one of the
deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by
the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the
poor.^ Clement of Alexandria, in the third book
of his Stromata, relates the following things
concerning him.'' " They say that he had 2
a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of
the Saviour, being accused by the apostles of
jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave
permission to any one that wished to marry her.
For they say that this was in accord with that
saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh.
And those that have followed his heresy, imitat-
ing blindly and foolishly that which was done
and said, commit fornication without shame.
But I understand that Nicolaus had to do 3
with no other woman than her to whom he was
married, and that, so far as his children are con-
cerned, his daughters continued in a state of virgin-
ity until old age, and his son remained uncorrupt.
If this is so, when he brought his wife, whom
he jealously loved, into the midst of the apos-
tles, he was evidently renouncing his passion ;
and when he used the expression, ' to abuse the
flesh,' he was inculcating self-control in the face
of those pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For
I suppose that, in accordance with the command
of the Saviour, he did not wish to serve two
masters, pleasure and the Lord.^ But they 4
say that Matthias also taught in the same
manner that we ought to fight against and abuse
the flesh, and not give way to it for the sake of
pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and
knowledge."^ So much concerning those who
then attempted to pervert the truth, but in less
time than it has taken to tell it became entirely
extinct.
CHAPTER XXX.
The Apostles that wei'e married,
Clement, indeed, whose words we have 1
just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts
gives a statement, on account of those who re-
jected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.^
wickedness. Whether the sect really claimed Nicolas as their
founder, or whether the combination was made by Irenaeus in con-
sequence of the identity of his name with the name of a sect men-
tioned in the Apocalypse, we cannot tell; nor have we any idea, in
the latter case, where the sect got the name which they bore. Clem-
ent of Alexandria, in the passage quoted just below, gives us quite
a different account of the character of Nicolas; and as he is a more
reliable writer than the ones above quoted, and as his statement ex-
plains excellently the appeal of the sect to Nicolas' authority, with-
out impeaching his character, which certainly his position among
the Seven would lead us to expect was good, and good enough
to warrant permanence, we feel safe in accepting his account as the
true one, and denying that Nicolas himself bore the character which
marked the sect of the Nicolaitans; though the latter may, as Clem-
ent says, have arisen from abusing a saying of Nicolas which had
been uttered with a good motive.
- See Acts vi. ^ Stromata, III. 4.
* Compare Matt. vi. 24.
5 This teaching was found in the Gospel of Matthias, or the
TrapaSdcrei? MaT^iou, mentioned in chap. 23 (see note 30 on that
chapter).
1 A chapter intervenes between the quotation given by Eusebius
l62
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[HI. 30.
" Or will they," says he,- " reject even the apos-
tles ? For Peter ^ and Philip * begat children ;
and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage.
And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles,
to greet his wife,^ whom he did not take about
with him, that he might not be inconven-
2 ienced in his ministry." And since we have
mentioned this subject it is not improper to
subjoin another account which is given by the
same author and which is worth reading. In the
seventh book of his Stromata he writes as fol-
lows : " " They say, accordingly, that when the
blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he
rejoiced because of her summons and her return
home, and called to her very encouragingly and
comfortingly, addressing her by name, and say-
ing, ' Oh thou, remember the Lord.' Such was
the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect
disposition toward those dearest to them." This
account being in keeping with the subject in
hand, I have related here in its proper place.
CHAPTER XXXI.
T/ie Death of Johti and Philip.
1 The time and the manner of the death of
Paul and Peter as well as their burial places,
just above and the one which follows. In it Clement had referred
to two classes of heretics, — without giving their names, — one of
which encouraged all sorts of license, while the other taught celibacy.
Having in that place refuted the former class, he devotes the chapter
from which the following quotation is taken to a refutation of the
latter, deducing against them the fact that some of the apostles were
married. Clement here, as in his Quis dives sak'ctur (quoted in
chap. 23), shows his good common sense which led him to avoid the
extreme of asceticism as well as that of license. He was in this
an exception to most of the Fathers of his own and subsequent ages,
who in their reaction from the licentiousness of the times advised
and often encouraged by their own example the most rigid asceti-
cism, and thus laid the foundation for monasticism.
2 Strom. HI. 6.
3 Peter was married, as we know from Matt. viii. 14 (cf i Cor.
ix. 5). Tradition also tells us of a daughter, St. Petronilla. She is
first called St. Peter's daughter in the Apocryphal Acts of SS.
Nereus and Achilles, which give a legendary account of her life
and death. In the Christian cemetery of Flavia Domitilla was
buried an Aurelia Petronilla filia dulcissima, and Petronilla
being taken as a diminutive of Petrus, she was assumed to have been
a daughter of Peter. It is probable that this was the origin of the
popular tradition. Petronilla is not, however, a diminutive of Pe-
trus, and it is probable that this woman was one of the Aurelian
gens and a relative of Flavia Domitilla. Compare the article Petro-
nilla in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. Petronilla has played a promi-
nent role in art. The immense painting by Guercino in the Palace
of the Conservators in Rome attracts the attention of all visitors.
* It is probable that Clement here confounds Philip the evange-
list with Philip the apostle. See the next chapter, note 6.
Philip the evangelist, according to Acts xxi. 9, had four daugh-
ters who were virgins. Clement (assuming that he is speaking
of the same Philip) is the only one to tell us that they afterward
married, and he tells us nothing about their husbands. Polycrates
in the next chapter states that two of them at least remained virgins.
If so, Clement's statement can apply at most only to the other two.
Whether his report is correct as respects them we cannot tell.
"5 Xhe passage to which Clement here refers and which he quotes
in this connection is i Cor. ix. 5; but this by no means proves that
Paul was married, and i Cor. vii. 8 seems to imply the opposite,
though the words might be used if he were a widower. The words
of Phil. iv. 3 are often quoted as addressed to his wife, but there is
no authority for such a reference. Clement is the only Father who
reports that Paul was married; many of them expressly deny it;
e.g. TertuUian, Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, &c. The authority
of these later Fathers is of course of little account. But Clement's
conclusion is based solely upon exegetical grounds, and therefore is
no argument for the truth of the report.
" Strom. VII. II. Clement, so far as we know, is the only one
to relate this story, but he bases it upon tradition, and although its
have been already shown by us.^ The time 2
of John's death has also been given in a gen-
eral way,^ but his burial place is indicated by an
epistle of Polycrates" (who was bishop of the par-
ish of Ephesus), addressed to Victor,'* bishop
of Rome. In this epistle he mentions him to-
gether with the apostle Philip and his
daughters in the following words : ■^ " For in 3
Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which
shall rise again on the last day, at the coming
of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from
heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among
these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles,*^ who
sleeps in Hierapolis,' and his two aged virgin
daughters, and another daughter who lived in
the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus ; ** and
truth cannot be proved, there is nothing intrinsically improbable
in it.
' See Bk. II. chap. 25, §§ 5 sqq. - See chap. 23, §§ 3, 4.
2 Upon Polycrates, see bk. V. chap. 22, note 9.
* Upon Victor, see ibid, note i.
" This epistle is the only writing of Polycrates which is pre-
served to us. This passage, with considerably more of the same
epistle, is quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 24. From that chapter we
see that the epistle was written in connection with the Quarto-deci-
man controversy, and after saying, " We therefore observe the genu-
ine day," Polycrates goes on in the words quoted here to mention
the " great lights of Asia" as confirming his own practice. (See
the notes upon the epistle in Bk. V. chap. 24.) The citation here of
this incidental passage from a letter upon a wholly different subject
illustrates Eusebius' great diligence in searching out all historical
notices which could in any way contribute to his history.
'> Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist are here con-
founded. That they were really two different men is clear enough
from Luke's account in the Acts (cf. Acts vi. 2-5, viii. 14-17, and
xxi. 8). That it was the evangelist, and not the apostle, that was
buried in Hierapolis may be assumed upon the following grounds:
(i) The evangelist (according to Acts xxi. 8) had four daughters,
who were virgins and prophetesses. Polycrates speaks here of three
daughters, at least two of whom were virgins, and Proclus, just be-
low, speaks of four daughters who were prophetesses. (2) Eu-
sebius, just below, expressly identifies the apostle and evangelist,
showing that in his time there was no separate tradition of the two
men. Lightfoot {Colossians, p. 45) maintains that Polycrates is
correct, and that it was the apostle, not the evangelist, that was
buried in Hierapolis; but the reasons which he gives are trivial and
will hardly convince scholars in general. Certainly we need strong
grounds to justify the separation of two men so remarkably similar
so far as their families are concerned. But the truth is, there is
nothing more natural than that later generations should identify the
evangelist with the apostle of the same name, and should assume
the presence of the latter wherever the former was known to have
been. This identification would in itself be a welcome one to the
inhabitants of Hierapolis, and hence it would be assumed there more
readily than anywhere else. Of course it is not impossible tliat
Philip the apostle also had daughters who were virgins and proph-
etesses, but it is far more probable that Polycrates (and possibly
Clement too; see the previous chapter) confounded him with the
evangelist, — as every one may have done for some generations be-
fore them. Eusebius at any rate, historian though he was, saw no
difficulty in making the identification, and certainly it was just as
easy for Polycrates and Clement to do the same. Lightfoot mukes
something of the fact that Polycrates mentions only three daugh-
ters, instead of four. But the latter's words by no means imply
that there had not been a fourth daughter (see note 8, below).
' Hierapolis was a prominent city in Proconsular Asia, about
five miles north of Laodicea, in connection with which city it is men-
tioned in Col. iv. 13. The ruins of this city are quite extensive, and
its site is occupied by a village called Pambouk Kelessi.
" The fact that only three of Philip's daughters are mentioned
here, when from the .'Vets we know he had four, shows that the fourth
had died elsewhere; and therefore it would have been aside from
Polycrates' purpose to mention her. since, as we see from Bk. V.
chap. 24, he was citing only those wlio had lived in Asia (the prov-
ince), and had agreed as to the date of the Passover. The separate
mention of this third daughter by Polycrates has been supposed to
arise from the fact that she was married, while the other two re-
mained virgins. This is, however, not .at all implied, as the fact
that she was buried in a different place would be enough to cause
the separate mention of her. Still, inasmuch as Clement (see the
preceding chapter) reports that Philip's daughters were married, and
inasmuch as Polycrates expressly states that two of them were vir-
gins, it is quite possible that she (as well as the fourth daughter, not
mentioned here) may have been a married woman, which would,
perhaps, account for her living in Ephesus and being buried tl.cie,
III. 32.]
MARTYRDOM OF SYMEON OF JERUSALEM.
163
moreover John, who was both a witness " and a
teacher, who recUned upon the bosom of the
Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal
platev" He also sleeps at Ephesus."" So
4 much concerning their death. And in the
Dialogue of Caius which we mentioned a
little above,^- Proclus," against whom he directed
his disputation, in agreement with what has been
quoted," speaks thus concerning the death of
Philip and his daughters : " After him '^ there
were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip,
at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and
the tomb of their father." Such is his state-
5 ment. But Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles,
mentions the daughters of Philip who were
at that time at Caesarea in Judea with their
father, and were honored with the gift of proph-
ecy. His words are as follows : " We came unto
Csesarea ; and entering into the house of Philip
the evangelist, \vho was one of the seven, we
instead of with her father and sister in Hierapolis. It is noticeable
that while two of the daughters are expressly called virgins, the
third is not.
•' /liopTvi?; see chap. 32, note 15.
"' The Gieek word is TreVaAoi', which occurs in the LXX. as the
technical term for the plate or diadem of the high priest (cf. Ex.
xxviii. 36, &c.). What is meant by the word in the present connec-
tion is uncertain. Epiphanius {Hcer. LXXVII. 14) says the same
thing of James, the brother of the Lord. But neither James nor
John was a Jewish priest, and therefore the words can be taken lit-
erally in neither case. Valesius and others have thought that John
and James, and perhaps others of the apostles, actually wore
something resembling the diadem of the high priest; but this is not
at all probable. The words are either to be taken in a purely figu-
rative sense, as meaning that John bore the character of a priest, —
i.e. the high priest of Christ as his most beloved disciple, — or, as
Hefele suggests, the report is to be regarded as a mythical tradition
which arose after the second Jewish war. See Kraus' Real-Ency-
clop<^die der christlichen Altertkiiiuer, Band II. p. 212 sq.
" Upon John's Ephesian activity and his death there, see Bk.
III. chap. I, note 6.
'- Bk. II. chap. 25, § 6, and Bk. III. chap. 28, § i. Upon Caius
and his dialogue with Proclus, see the former passage, note 8.
1^ Upon Proclus, a Montanistic leader, see Bk. II. chap. 25,
note 12.
" The agreement of the two accounts is not perfect, as Poly-
crates reports that two daughters were buried at Hierapolis and one
at Ephesus, while Proclus puts them all four at Hierapolis. But the
report of Polycrates deserves our credence rather than that of Pro-
clus, because, in the first place, Polycrates was earlier than Proclus;
in the second place, his report is more exact, and it is hard to imag-
ine how, if all four were really buried in one place, the more detailed
report of Polycrates could have arisen, while on the other hand it is
quite easy to explain the rise of the more general but inexact ac-
count of Proclus; for with the general tradition that Philip and his
daughters lived and died in Hierapolis needed only to be combined
the fact that he had four daughters, and Proclus' version was com-
plete. In the third place, Polycrates' report bears the stamp of
truth as contrasted with mere legend, because it accounts for only
three daughters, while universal tradition speaks of four.
How Eusebius could have overlooked the contradiction it is more
difficult to explain. He can hardly have failed to notice it, but was
undoubtedly unable to account for the difference, and probably con-
sidered it too small a matter to concern himself about. He was quite
prone to accept earlier accounts just as they stood, whether contra-
dictory or not. The fact that they had been recorded was usually
enough for him, if they contained no improbable or fabulous stories.
He cannot be accused of intentional deception at this point, for he
gives the true accounts side by side, so that every reader might
judge of the agreement for himself. Upon the confusion of the
apostle and evangelist, see above, note 5.
1^ I read ixera tovtov with the majority of the MSS., with Bur-
ton, Routh, Schwegler, Heinichen, &c., instead of /aera toOto, which
occurs in some MSS. and in Rufinus, and is adopted by Valesius,
Crusfe, and others. As Burton says, the copyists of Eusebius, not
knowing to whom Proclus here referred, changed toOtoi/ to toCto;
but if we had the preceding context we should find that Proclus had
been referring to some prophetic man such as the Montanists were
fond of appealing to in support of their position. Schwegler sug-
gests that it may have been the Quadratus mentioned in chap. 37,
but this is a mere guess. As the sentence stands isolated from its
connection, toOtoi' is the harder reading, and could therefore have
more easily been changed into toOto than the latter into tovtov.
abode with him. Now this man had four daugh-
ters, virgins, which did prophesy."'"
We have thus set forth in these pages 6
what has come to our knowledge concern-
ing the apostles themselves and the apostolic
age, and concerning the sacred writings which
they have left us, as well as concerning those
which are disputed, but nevertheless have been
publicly used by many in a great number of
churches,^'' and moreover, concerning those that
are altogether rejected and are out of harmony
with apostolic orthodoxy. Having done this, let
us now proceed with our history.
CHAPTER XXXn.
Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, suffers Mar-
tyrdom.
It is reported that after the age of Nero and 1
Domitian, under the emperor whose times
we are now recording,' a persecution was stirred
up against us in certain cities in consequence of
a popular uprising.' In this persecution we have
understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas,
who, as we have shown, was the second bishop
of the church of Jerusalem,^ suffered martyr-
dom. Hegesippus, whose words we have 2
already quoted in various places,'* is a witness
to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics^ he
adds that Symeon was accused by them at this
time ; and since it was clear that he was a Chris-
tian, he was tortured in various ways for many days,
and astonished even the judge himself and his
attendants in the highest degree, and finally he
suffered a death similar to that of our Lord."
But there is nothing like hearing the histo- 3
rian himself, who writes as follows : " Cer-
tain of these heretics brought accusation against
Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he
was a descendant of David ^ and a Christian ;
"5 Acts xxi. 8, g. Eusebius clearly enough considers Philip the
apostle and Philip the evangelist identical. Upon this identification,
see note 6, above.
1' tepwi' ypatifidTUiV, Kol ruiv avTiKeyotievuv fiev, ofxu; . . . SeSr)-
ixoaievfiii'itiv. The classification here is not inconsistent with that
given in chap. 25, but is less complete than it, inasmuch as here
Eusebius draws no distinction between ai'TiAe-yofiei'a and I'ofloi, but
uses the former word in its general sense, and includes under it both
the particular classes {Atitilegoiiiena and v66ol) of chap. 25 (see
note 27 on that chapter).
' Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117 A.D.
^ Upon the state of the Christians under Tmjan, see the next
chapter, with the notes. ^ See chap. 11.
* Quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 20, and men-
tioned in Bk. III. chap. n. Upon his life and writings, see Bk. IV.
chap. 8, note i.
^ In the passage quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, § 4, Hegesippus
speaks of various heretics, and it looks as if the passage quoted
there directly preceded the present one in the work of Hegesippus.
'' That is, by crucifixion, as stated in § 6.
' It is noticeable that Symeon was not sought out by the impenal
authorities, but was accused to them as a descendant of David and
as a Christian. The former accusation shows with what suspicion
all members of the Jewish royal family were still viewed, as possible
instigators of a revolution (cf. chap. 20, note 2) ; the latter shows
that in the eyes of the State Christianity was in itself a crime (see
the next chapter, note 6). In the next paragraph it is stated that
search was made by the officials for members of the Jewish royal
M 2
164
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
tni. 32.
and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of
one hundred and twenty years,* while Trajan
was emperor and Atticus governor."^
4 And the same writer says that his accus-
ers also, when search was made for the
descendants of David, were arrested as belong-
ing to that family.'" And it might be reasonably
assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw
and heard the Lord," judging from the length of
his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes
mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas,'- who was
the father of Symeon, as has been already
5 shown.'^ The same historian says that there
were also others, descended from one of
the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose
name was Judas, who, after they had borne tes-
timony before Domitian, as has been already
recorded," in behalf of faith in Christ, lived
6 until the same reign. He writes as follows :
" They came, therefore, and took the lead
family. This was quite natural, after the attention of the govern-
ment had been officially drawn to the family by the arrest of Symeon.
* The date of the martyrdom of Symeon is quite uncertain. It
has been commonly ascribed (together with the martyrdom of Igna-
tius) to the year 106 or 107, upon the authority of Eusebius' Chron.,
which is supposed to connect these events with the ninth or tenth
year of Trajan's reign. But an examination of the passage in the
Chron., where Eusebius groups together these two events and the
persecutions in Bithynia, shows that he did not pretend to know the
exact date of any of them, and simply put them together as three
similar events known to have occurred during the reign of Trajan
(cf. Lightfoot's Ignatius, 11. p. 447 sqq.). The year of Atticus'
proconsulship we unfortunately do not know, although Wieseler, in
his Chn'sien-J'er/olgungen der Coesaren, p. 126, cites Wadding-
ton as his authority for the statement that Herodes Atticus was pro-
consul of Palestine from 105 to 107; but all that Waddington says
{Pastes lies prov. Asiat., p. 720) is, that since the proconsul for
the years 105 to 107 is not known, and Eusebius puts the death of
Symeon in the ninth or tenth year of Trajan, we may assume that
this was the date of Atticus' proconsulship. This, of course, fur-
nishes no support for the common opinion. Lightfoot, on account
of the fact that Symeon was the son of Clopas, wishes to put the
martyrdom earlier in Trajan's reign, and it is probable that it oc-
curred earlier rather than later; more cannot be said. The great
age of .Symeon and his martyrdom under Trajan are too well authen-
ticated to admit of doubt; at the same time, the figure 120 may well
be an exaggeration, as Lightfoot thinks. Renan {Les Evangiles,
p. 466) considers it very improbable that Symeon could have had so
long a life and episcopate, and therefore invents a second Symeon, a
great-grandson of Clopas, as fourth bishop of Jerusalem, and makes
him the martyr mentioned here. But there is nothing improbable
in the survival of a contemporary of Jesus to the time of Trajan, and
there is no warrant for rejecting the tradition, which is unanimous
in calling Symeon the son of Clopas, and also in emphasizing his
great age.
^ cTTL Tpatat'oO «at(7apo5 /cat vnaTiKou 'AttikoO. The nouns be-
ing without the article, the phrase is to be translated, " while Trajan
was emperor, and Atticus governor." In § 6, below, where the arti-
cle is used, we must translate, "before Atticus the governor" (see
Lightfoot's Ignatius, I. p. 59).
The word iWarixo? is an adjective signifying " consular, pertain-
ing to a consul." It "came to be used in the second century espe-
cially of provincial governors who had held the consulship, and at a
later date of such governors even though they might not have been
consuls" (Lightfoot, p. 59, who refers to Marquardt, Romische
Staatsverwaltnng, I. 409).
1" This is a peculiar statement. Members of the house of David
would hardly have ventured to accuse Symeon on the ground that he
belonged to tliat house. The statement is, however, quite indefinite.
We are not told what happened to these accusers, nor indeed that
they really were of David's line, although the uxrar with which Eu-
sebius introduces the charge does not imply any doubt in his own
mind, as Lightfoot quite rightly remarks. It is possible that some
who were of the line of David may have accused Symeon, not of be-
ing a member of that family, but only of being a Christian, and that
the report of the occurrence may have become afterward confused.
" This is certainly a reasonable supposition, and the unanimous
election of Symeon as successor of James at a time when there must
have been many living who had seen the Lord, confirms the con-
clusion.
^2 Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned in John xix. 25.
'3 See above, chap. ti.
** See above, chap. 20. *<» See p. 389, note.
of every church '** as witnesses'^ and as relatives cf
the Lord. And profound peace being established
in every church, they remained until the reign of
the Emperor Trajan,'" and until the above-men-
tioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the
Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and
was himself in like manner accused for the same
cause '' before the governor Atticus.'^ And after
being tortured for many days he suffered mar-
tyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul,
marveled that, at the age of one hundred and
twenty years, he could endure so much. And
orders were given that he should be cruci-
fied." In addition to these things the same 7
man, while recounting the events of that
period, records that the Church up to that time
had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin,
since, if there were any that attempted to cor-
rupt the sound norm of the preaching of salva-
tion, they lay until then concealed in obscure
darkness. But when the sacred college of 8
apostles had suffered death in various forms,
and the generation of those that had been deemed
worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their
own ears had passed away, then the league of
godless error took its rise as a result of the folly
of heretical teachers,'^ who, because none of the
apostles was still living, attempted henceforlli,
with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to
the preaching of the truth, the ' knowledge which
is falsely so-called.'""
CHAPTER XXXIII.
Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after.
So great a persecution was at that time 1
opened against us in many places that Plin-
ius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors,
being disturbed by the great number of martyrs,
communicated with the emperor concerning the
multitude of those that were put to death for
'•'' judpTvpes. The word is evidently used here in its earlier sense
of " witnesses," referring to those who testified to Christ even if they
did not seal their testimony with death. This was the original use
of the word, and continued very common during the first two cen-
turies, after which it became the technical term for persons actually
martyred and was confined to them, while 6|uoAo7r)Tr;5, " confessor,"
gradually came into use as the technical term for those who had
Ijorne testimony in the midst of persecution, but h.id not sufl'ered
death. As early as the first century (cf. Acts xxii. 20 and Rev. ii.
13) /lapTDs was used of martyrs, but not as distinguishing them from
other witnesses to the truth. See the remarks of Lightfoot, in his
edition of Clement of Rome, p. 46.
'" This part of the quotation has already been given in Eusebius'
own words in chap. 20, § 8. See note 5 on that chapter.
1' i-a'i. TO) auTci Aoyw, that is, was accused for the sarne reason that
the grandsons of Jud.as (whom Hegesippus had mentioned just be-
fore) were; namely, because he belonged to the line of David. See
chap. 20; but compare also the remarks made in note 10, above.
^i* en-i 'AttikoO toO uTraTiKoO. See above, note 9.
1" On the heretics mentioned by Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.
-" Trjr i//ei;6di'UM0i' -^vi^ai-V, i Tim. vi. 20. A few MSS., followed
by Stephanus, Valesius (in his text), Closs, and Crusd, add the
words (in substance) : " Such is the statement of Hegesippus. But
let us proceed with the course of our history." The m.ajority of the
MSS., however, endorsed by Valesius in his notes, and followed by
Burton, Heinichen, and most of the editors, omit the words, which
are clearly an interpolation-
in. 33-1
CORRESPONDENCE OF TRAJAN AND PLINY.
165
their faith.^ At the same time, he informed him
in his communication that he had not heard of
their doing anything profane or contrary to the
hivvs, — except that they arose at dawn^ and
sang hymns to Christ as a God ; but that they
renounced adultery and murder and like crimi-
' Plinius Caecilius SecunJus, commonly called " Pliny the young-
er" to distinguish him from his uncle, Plinius Secundus the elder,
was a man of great literary attainments and an intimate friend of
the Kmperor Trajan. Of his literary remains the most important
are his epistles, collected in ten books. The epistle of which Euse-
bius speaks in this chapter is No. 96 (97), and the reply of Trajan No.
97 (98) of the tenth book. The epistle was written from Bilhynia,
probably within a year after Pliny became governor there, which
was in no or in. It reads as follows: " It is my custom, my Lord,
to refer to thee all questions concerning which I am in doubt ; for
who can better direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I
have never been present at judicial examinations of the Christians;
therefore I am ignorant how and to what extent it is customary
to punish or to search for them. And I have hesitated greatly as
to whether any distinction should be made on the ground of age,
or whether the weak should be treated in the same way as the
strong; whether pardon should be granted to the penitent, or he who
has ever been a Christian gain nothing by renouncing it; whether
the mere nanie, if unaccompanied with crimes, or crimes associated
with the name, should be punished. Meanwhile, with those who
have been brought before me as Christians I have pursued the
following course. I have asked them if they were Christians, and if
they have confessed, I have asked them a second and third time,
threatening them with punishment; if they have persisted, I have
commanded them to be led away to punishment. For I did not
doubt that whatever that might be which they confessed, at any rate
pertinacious and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There
■have been others afflicted with like msanity who as Roman citizens
I have decided should be sent to Rome. In the course of the pro-
ceedings, as commonly happens, the crime was extended, and many
varieties of cases appeared. An anonymous document was pub-
lished, containing the names of many persons. Those who denied
that they were or had been Christians I thought ought to be released,
when they had followed my example in invoking the gods and offer-
ing incense and wine to thine image, — which I had for that purpose
ordered brought with the images of the gods, — and when they had
besides cursed Christ — things which they say that those who are
truly Christians cannot be compelled to do. Others, accused by an
informer, first said that they were Christians and afterwards denied
it, saying that they had indeed been Christians, but had ceased to be,
some three years, some several years, and one even twenty years
before. All adored thine image and the statues of the gods, and
cursed Christ. Moreover, they affirmed that this was the sum of
their guilt or error; that they Iiad been accustomed to come together
on a fixed day before daylight and to sing responsively a song unto
Christ as God; and to bind themselves with an oath, not with a view
to the commission of some crime, but, on the contrary, that they
would not commit theft, nor robbery, nor adultery, that they would
not break faith, nor refuse to restore a deposit when asked for it.
When they had done these things, their custom was to separate and
to assemble again to partake of a meal, common yet harmless (which
is not the characteristic of a nefarious superstition) ; but this they
had ceased to do after my edict, in which according to thy demands
I had prohibited fraternities. I therefore considered it the more
necessary to examine, even with the use of torture, two female slaves
who were called deaconesses {inijiistri^), in order to ascertain the
truth. But I found nothing except a superstition depraved and
immoderate ; and therefore, postponing further inquiry, I have
turned to thee for advice. For the matter seems to me worth con-
sulting about, especially on account of the number of persons
involved. For many of every age and of every rank and of both
sexes have been already and will be brought to trial. For the con-
tagion of this superstition has permeated not only the cities, but
also the villages and even the country districts. Yet it can appar-
ently be arrested and corrected. At any rate, it is certainly a fact
that the temples, which were almost deserted, are now beginning to
be frequented, and the sacred rites, which were for a long time inter-
rupted, to be resumed, and fodder for the victims to be sold, for
which previously hardly a purchaser was to be found. From which
it is easy to gather how great a multitude of men may be reformed
if there is given a chance for repentance."
The reply of Trajan — commonly called " Trajan's Rescript " —
reads as follows: " Thou hast followed the right course, my Secun-
dus, in treating the cases of those who have been brought before
thee as Christians. For no fixed rule can be laid down which shall
be applicable to all cases. They are not to be searched for; if they
are accused and convicted, they are to be punished; neverthe'kviss,
with the proviso that he who denies that he is a Christian, and
proves it by his act {re i/>sa) , — i.e. by making supplication to our
gods, — although suspected in regard to the past, may by repent-
ance obtain pardon. Anonymous accusations ought not to be ad-
mitted in any proceedings; for they are of most evil precedent, and
are not in accord with our age."
- oi^a T^ eu 5iEyci.po|a£Vov9t See note 9, beloWf
nal offenses, and did all things in accord-
ance with the laws. In reply to this Trajan 2
made the following decree : that the race of
Christians should not be sought after, but when
found should be punished. On account of this
the persecution which had threatened to be a
most terrible one was to a certain degree
checked, but there were still left plenty of pre-
texts for those who wished to do us harm.
Sometimes the people, sometimes the rulers in
various places, would lay plots against us, so
that, although no great persecutions took place,
local persecutions were nevertheless going on
in particular provinces,^ and many of the faith-
ful endured martyrdom in various forms.
We have taken our account from the 3
Latin Apology of Tertullian which we men-
tioned above.'* The translation nms as follows :'
" And indeed we have found that search for us
has been forbidden.® For when Phnius Secundus,
the governor of a province, had condemned cer-
tain Christians and deprived them of their dig-
nity,'' he was confounded by the multitude, and
was uncertain what further course to pursue. He
therefore communicated with Trajan the empe-
ror, informing him that, aside from their unwil-
lingness to sacrifice,* he had found no im-
piety in them. And he reported this also, 4
that the Christians arose ^ early in the
■> This is a very good statement of the case. There was nothing
approaching a universal persecution, — that is, a persecution simul-
taneously carried on in all parts of the empire, until the time of
Decius.
■* Mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 2. On the translation of Tertul-
lian's Apology employed by Eusebius, see note 9 on that chapter.
The present passage is rendered, on the whole, with considerable
fidelity; much more accurately than in the two cases noticed in the
previous book. ^ Apol. chap. 2.
•^ The view which Tertullian here takes of Trajan's rescript is
that it was, on the whole, favorable, — that the Christians stood after
it in a better state in relation to the law than before, — and this in-
terpretation of the edict was adopted by all the early Fathers, and is,
as we can see, accepted likewise by Eusebius (and so he entitles this
chapter, not " Trajan commands the Christians to be punished, if
they persist in their Christianity," but " Trajan forbids the Chris-
tians to be sought after," thus implying that the rescript is favora-
ble). But this interpretation is a decided mistake. Tr.ijan's re-
script expressly made Christianity a religio illicita, and from that
time on it was a crime in the sight of the law to be a Christian;
whereas, before that time, the matter had not been finally deter-
mined, and it had been left for each ruler to act just as he pleased.
Trajan, it is true, advises moderation in the execution of the law;
but that does not alter the fact that his rescript is an unfavorable
one, which makes the profession of Christianity — what it had not
been before — a direct violation of an established law. Compare,
further, Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 14.
" Ka.-ra.K.pivo.'; Xpi<rTia>'ous Tifas Kal Tij? a^ioM eKpaXiov. The
Latin original reads: daitniatis gjiibusdam christiaiiis, guibiis-
ciain gradu pulsi's. The Greek translator loses entirely the antithe-
sis oi qiiibnsdain . . . fu/i>?isda)u {sovie he condemned, others he
deprived of their dignity) . He renders gradn by t^9 ai,ia.<;, which
is quite allowable; but Thelwall, in his English translation in the
Ante-N'icene Fathers, renders the second phrase, "and driven
some from their steadfastness," in which the other sense oi gradus
is adopted.
8 Greek: efco tou )J.r\ ^ovKicrdai auToii? eiSwAoAarpeiv. Latin
original: prieter obstinatione»i noti sacrificandi. The ei5wAoAa-
rpeti' is quite indefinite, and might refer to any kind of idolatry; but
the Latin sacrificandi is definite, referring clearly to the sacrifices
which the accused Christians were required to offer in the presence
of the governor, if they wished to save their lives. I have, there-
fore, translated the Greek word in the light of the Latin word which
it is employed to reproduce.
'■> Greek: aricTTao-eat 'iutQtv. Latin original: ccetns anirlnca-
nos. The Latin speaks of " assemblies " (which is justified by the
ante luccm convenire of Pliny's epistle), while the Greek (both
here and in § i, above) speaks only of " arising," and thus fails to
reproduce the full sense of the original.
1 66
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
pn. 33.
morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God,
and for the purpose of preserving their disci-
pline^'' forbade murder, adultery, avarice, rob-
bery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote
that the race of Christians should not be sought
after, but when found should be punished."
Such were the events which took place at that
time.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
Evarestus, the Fourth Bishop of the Church of
Rome.
In the third year of the reign of the emperor
mentioned above,' Clement" committed the
episcopal government of the church of Rome
to Evarestus,'' and departed this life after he had
superintended the teaching of the divine word
nine years in all.
CHAPTER XXXV.
Justus, the Third Bishop of Jerusalem.
But when Symeon also had died in the man-
ner described,^ a certain Jew by the name of
Justus ^ succeeded to the episcopal throne in
Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands
of the circumcision who at that time believed in
Christ.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Ignatius and his Epistles.
1 At that time Polycarp,^ a disciple of the
apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having
been entrusted with the episcopate of the church
of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the
Lord.
2 And at the same time Papias,- bishop of
^^ Greek ; jrpb? to •t\\v k-nnnii^yiv avTu>u 6ta(/>uAa<T<reti'. Latin
original: ad coitfcederanduin disciplinam. The Greek transla-
tion is again somewhat inaccurate. k-ni.aTi\\i.i\ (literally, " experi-
ence," " knowledge ") expresses certain meanings of the word dis-
iif>liiia, but does not strictly reproduce the sense in which the latter
word is used in this passage; namely, in the sense of moral disci-
pline. I have again translated the Greek version in the light of its
Latin original.
1 The Emperor Trajan.
' On Clement of Rome, see chap. 4, note 19.
3 In Bk. IV. chap, i, Kuscbius gives eight years as the dur.ition
of Evarestus' episcopate; but in his Ckron. he gives seven. Other
catalogues differ widely, both as to the time of his accession and the
duration of his episcopate. The truth is, as the monarchical episco-
pate was not yet existing in Rome, it is useless to attempt to fix his
dates, or those of any of the other so-called bishops who lived before
the second quarter of the second century.
* See above, chap. 32.
* Of this Justus we know no more than Eusebius tells us here.
Epiphanius {Har. LXVI. 20) calls him Judas.
* On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. i.t, note 5.
' Of the life of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, we know very little.
He is mentioned by lrena;us. Ad-:'. Htir. V. 33. 3 and 4, who in-
forms us that he was a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of the
apostle John. The latter statement is in all probability incorrect
(see chap. 39, note 4) ; but there is no reason to question the truth
of the former. Papias' dates we cannot ascertain with any great dc-
the parish of Hierapolis,^ became well known,
as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of
Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and
whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.^
gree of accuracy. A notice in the Chron. Paschale, which makes
him a martyr and connects his death with that of Polycarp, assign-
ing both to the year 164 a.d., has been shown by Lightfoot {Con-
toiip. Review, 1875, 11. p. 381) to rest upon a confusion of names,
and to be, therefore, entirely untrustworthy. We learn, however,
from chap. 39, below, that Papias was acquainted with personal fol-
lowers of the Lord (e.g. with Aristion and the " presbyter John"),
and also with the daughters of Philip. He must, therefore, have
reached years of maturity before the end of the first century. On
the other hand, the five books of his Expositions cannot have been
written very long before the middle of the second century, for some
of the extant fragments seem to show traces of the existence of Gnos-
ticism in a somewhat advanced form at the time he wrote. With
these data we shall not be far wrong in saying that he was born
in the neighborhood of 70 a.d., and died before the middle of the
second century. He was a pronounced chiliast (see chap. 39, note
ig), and according to Eusebius, a man of limited understanding (see
chap. 39, note 20) ; but the clainr of the TUbingen school that he
was an Ebionite is not supported by extant evidence (see Lightfoot,
ibid. p. 384). On the writings of Papias, see below, chap. 39,
note I.
3 Four MSS. insert at this point the words o.vi\p rot iravra on
fxa-Xiara. AoyiwraTos koX t^s ypacf)^; eiSTjjxcov (" a man of the great-
est learning in all lines and well versed in the Scriptures "), which
are accepted by Heinichen, Gloss, and Cruse. The large majority of
the best MSS., however, supported by Rufinus, and followed by
Valesius (in his notes), Stroth, Laemmer, Burton, and the German
translator, Stigloher, omit the words, which are undoubtedly to be
regarded as an interpolation, intended perhaps to offset the deroga-
tory words used by Eusebius in respect to Papias in chap. 39, § 13.
In discussing the genuineness of these words, critics (among them
Heinichen) have concerned themselves too much with the question
whether the opinion of Papias expressed here contradicts that ex-
pressed in chap. 39, and therefore, whether Eusebius can have writ-
ten these words. Even if it be possible to reconcile the two passages
and to show that Papias may have been a learned man, while at the
same time he was of " limited judgment," as Eusebius informs us,
the fact nevertheless remains that the weight of MS. authority is
heavily against the genuineness of the words, and that it is much
easier to understand the interpolation than the omission of such an
expression in praise of one of the apostolic Fathers, especially when
the lack of any commendation here and in chap. 39 must be un-
pleasantly noticeable.
■• Eusebius follows what was undoubtedly the oldest tradition in
making Evodius the first bishop of Antioch, and Ignatius the secimd
(see above, chap. 22, note 2). Granting the genuineness of the
shorter Greek recension of the Ignatian epistles (to be mentioned
below), the fact that Ignatius was bishop of the church of Antioch
in Syria is established by Ep. ad Koin. 9, compared with ad Siiiyr.
II and ad Polycarp. 7. If the genuineness of the epistles be denied,
these passages seem to prove at least his connection with the church
of Antioch and his influential position in it, for otherwise the forgery
of the epistles under his name would be inconceivable.
There are few more prominent figures in early Church history
than Ignatius, and yet there are few about whom we have less un-
questioned knowledge. He is known in history pre-eminently as a
martyr. The greater part of his life is buried in complete obscurity.
It is only as a man condemned to death for his profession of Christi-
anity that he comes out into the light, and it is with him in this char-
acter and with the martyrdom which followed that tradition has
busied itself. There are extant various Acts of the Martyrdom ot
St. Ignatius which contain detailed accounts of his death, but these
belong to the fourth and subsequent centuries, are quite contra-
dictory in their statements, and have been conclusively proved to
be utterly unreliable and to furnish no trustworthy information on
the subject in hand. From writers before Eusebius we have but
four notices of Ignatius (Polycarp's Ep. ad Phil. 9, 13; Irenaus'
Adv. Hier. V. 28. 3, quoted below; Origen, Prol. in Cant., and
Horn. /'/. in Luc). These furnish us with very little informa-
tion. If the notice in Polycarp's epistle be genuine (and though it
has been widely attacked, there is no good reason to doubt it), it
furnishes us with our earliest testimony to the martyrdom of a cer-
tain Ignatius and to the existence of epistles written by him. Ire-
na;us does not name Ignatius, but he testifies to the existence of
the Epistle to the Romans which bears his name, and to the martyr-
dom of the author of that epistle. Origen informs us that Ignatius,
the author of certain epistles, w.as second bishop of the church of
Antioch and suffered martyrdom at Rome. Eusebius, in the present
chapter, is the first one to give us an extended account of Ignatius,
and his account contains no information beyond what he might h.ive
drawn from the Ignatian epistles themselves as they lay before him,
except the statements, already made by Origen, that Ignatius was
the second bishop of Antioch and suffered martyrdom at Rome.
The former statement must have rested on a tradition, at least in
part, independent of the epistles (for they imply only the fact of
his Antiochian episcopacy, without specifying the time) ; the latter
might have arisen from the epistles themselves (in which it is clearly
stated that the writer is on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom),
III. 36.]
IGNATIUS AND HIS EPISTLES.
167
Report says that he was sent from Syria to
Rome, and became food for wild beasts on
for of course it would be natural to assume that his expectation was
realized.
The connection in which Eusebius records the martyrdom im-
plies that he believed that it took pLice in the reign of Trajan, and
in his Chronicle he gives precise dates for the beginning of his
episcopate (the 212th Olympiad, i.e. 69-72 a.d.) and for his martyr-
dom (the tenth year of Trajan, i.e. 107 A.u.). Subsequent notices
iif Ignatius are either quite worthless or are based solely upon the
epistles themselves or upon the statements of Eusebius. The in-
formation, independent of the epistles, which has reached us from
the time of Eusebius or earlier, consequently narrows itself down to
the report that Ignatius was second bishop of Antioch, and that he
was bishop from about 70 to 107 A.u. The former date may be
regarded as entirely unreliable. Even were it granted that there
could have been a bishop at the head of the Antiochian church at so
early a date (and there is no warrant for such a supposition) , it would
nevertheless be impossible to place any reliance upon the date given
by Eusebius, as it is impossible to place any reliance upon the dates
given for the so-called bishops of other cities during the first century
(see Bk. IV. chap, i, note i). But the date of Ignatius' martyrdom
given by Eusebius seems at first sight to rest upon a more reliable
tradition, and has been accepted by many scholars as correct. Its
accuracy, however, has been impugned, especially by Zahn and
Lightfoot, who leave the date of Ignatius' death uncertain, claiming
simply that he died under Trajan; and by Harnack, who puts his
death into the reign of Hadrian. We shall refer to this again further
on. ISIeanwhile, since the information which we have of Ignatius,
independent of the Ignatian epistles, is so small in amount, vve are
obliged to turn to those epistles for our chief knowledge of his life
and character.
But at this point a difficulty confronts us. There are extant three
different recensions of epistles ascribed to Ignatius. Are any of
them genuine, and if so, which? The first, or longer Greek recen-
sion, as it is called, consists of fifteen epistles, which were first pub-
lished in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Of these fifteen, eight
are clearly spurious, and seven are at least largely interpolated. The
genuineness of the former and the integrity of the latter now find no
defenders among scholars. The second, or shorter Greek recension,
contains seven of the fifteen epistles of the longer recension, in a
much shorter form. Their titles are the same that are given by
Eusebius in this chapter. They were first discovered and published
in the seventeenth century. "The third, or Syriac recension, con-
tains three of these seven epistles (to Polycarp, to the Ephesians,
and to the Romans), in a still shorter form, and was discovered in
the present century. Since its discovery, opinions have been divided
between it and the shorter Greek recension; but the defense of the
genuineness of the latter by Zahn and Lightfoot may be regarded as
finally settling the matter, and establishing the originality of the
shorter Greek recension as over against that represented by the
Syriac version. Ihe former, therefore, alone comes into considera-
tion in discussing the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles. Their
genuineness is still stoutly denied by some; but the evidence in their
favor, external and internal, is too strong to be .set aside; and since
the appearance of Lightfoot's great work, candid scholars almost
unanimously admit that the question is settled, and their genuine-
ness triumphantly established. The great difficulties which have
stood in the way of the acceptance of the epistles are, first and chiefly,
the highly developed form of church government which they reveal ;
and secondly, the attacks upon heresy contained in them. Both of
these characteristics seem to necessitate a date later than the reign of
Trajan, the traditional time of Ignatius' martyrdom. Harnack regards
these two difficulties as very serious, if not absolutely fatal to the
supposition that the epistles were written during the reign of Trajan;
but in a very keen tract, entitled Die Zeit des Ignatius (Leipzig,
1878) , he has endeavored to show that the common tradition that
Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan is worthless, and he
therefore brings the martyrdom down into the reign of Hadrian, and
thus does away with most of the internal difficulties which beset the
acceptance of the epistles. Whether or not Harnack's explanation
of Eusebius' chronology of the Antiochian bishops be accepted as
correct (and the number of its adherents is not great), he has, at
least, shown that the tradition that Ignatius suffered martyrdom un-
der Trajan is not as strong as it has been commonly supposed to be,
and that it is possible to question seriously its reliability. Light-
foot, who discusses Harnack's theory at considerable length (II.
p. 450-469), rejects it, and maintains that Ignatius died sometime
during the reign of Trajan, though, with Zahn and Harnack, he gives
up the traditional date of 107 a.d., which is found in the Chronicle of
Eusebius, and has been very commonly accepted as reliable. Light-
foot, however, remarks that the genuineness of the epistles is much
more certain than the chronology of Ignatius, and that, therefore, if
it is a question between the rejection of the epistles and the relega-
tion of Ignatius' death to the reign of Hadrian (which he, however,
denies), the latter alternative must be chosen without hesitation. A
final decision upon this knotty point has not yet been, and perhaps
never will be, reached; but Harnack's theory that the epistles were
written during the reign of Hadrian deserves even more careful con-
sideration than it has yet received.
Granting the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, we are still
in possession of no great amount of information in regard to his life.
We know from them only that he was bishop of the church of Anti-
och in Syria, and had been condemned to martyrdom, and that he
account of his testimony to Christ.^ And 4
as he made the journey through Asia under
the strictest mihtary surveillance, he fortified the
parishes in the various cities where he stopped
by oral homilies and exhortations, and warned
them above all to be especially on their guard
against the heresies that were then beginning to
prevail, and exhorted them to hold fast to the
tradition of the apostles. Moreover, he thought
it necessary to attest that tradition in writing,
and to give it a fixed form for the sake of
greater security. So when he came to 5
Smyrna, where Polycarp was, he wrote an
epistle to the church of Ephesus," in which he
was, at the time of their composition, on his way to Rome to suffer
death in the arena. His character and opinions, however, are very
clearly exhibited in his writings. To quote from Schaff, " Ignatius
stands out in history as the ideal of a Catholic martyr, and as the
earliest advocate of the hierarchical principle in both its good and
its evil points. As a writer, he is remarkable for originality, fresh-
ness, and force of ideas, and for terse, sparkling, and sententious
style; but in apostolic simplicity and soundness, he is inferior to
Clement and Polycarp, and presents a stronger contrast to the epis-
tles of the New Testament. Clement shows the calmness, dignity,
and governmental wisdom of the Roman character. Ignatius glows
with the fire and impetuosity of the Greek and Syrian temper which
carries him beyond the bounds of sobriety. He was a very uncom-
mon man, and made a powerful impression upon his age. _ He is the
incarnation, as it were, of the three closely connected ideas: the
glory of martyrdom, the omnipotence of episcopacy, and the hatred
of heresy and schism. Hierarchical pride and humility, Christian
charity and churchly exclusiveness, are typically represented in
Ignatius."
The literature on Ignatius and the Ignatian controversy is very
extensive. The principal editions to be consulted are Cureton's
The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to St.
Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans, with English transla-
tion and notes (the editio princeps of the Syriac version), London
and Berlin, 1845; Zahn'?, Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulie,Martyria
fragnicjita. Lips. 1876 {Pairiiin Aposiolicoruin Opera, ed. Geb-
hardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Vol. II.); Bishop Lightfoot's Si. Igna- ^
tins and St. Polycarp ( The Apostolic Fathers, Part II.) , London,
1885. This edition (in two volumes) is the most complete and
exhaustive edition of Ignatius' epistles which has yet appeared, and
contains a very full and able discussion of all questions connected
with Ignatius and his writings. It contains the text of the longer
Greek recension and of the Syriac version, in addition to that of the
seven genuine epistles, and practically supersedes all earlier editions.
An English translation of all the epistles of Ignatius (Syriac and
Greek, in both recensions) is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers
(Am. ed.), Vol. I. pp. 45-126. The principal discussions which it
is necessary to refer to here are those of Lightfoot in his edition of
tributed by Harnack to the Expositor, Hcaen-Hae^x, 1885, January
and March, 1886. For a more extended list of works on the subject,
and for a brief review of the whole matter, see Schafi^s Church His-
tory, Vol. II. p. 651-664.
6 That Ignatius was on his way from Syria to Rome, under con-
demnation for his testimony to Christ, and that he was expecting to
be cast to the wild beasts upon reaching Rome, appears from many
passages of the epistles themselves. Whether the tradition, as Eu-
sebius calls it, that he actually did suffer martyrdom at Rome was
independent of the epistles, or simply grew out of the statements
made in them, we cannot tell. Whichever is the case, we may re-
gard the tradition as reliable. That he suffered martyrdom some-
where is too well attested to be doubted for a moment; and there
exists no tradition in favor of any other city as the place of his
martyrdom, except a late one reported by John Malalas, which names
Antioch as the place. This is accepted by Volkmar and by the
author of Supernatural Religion, but its falsity has been conclu-
sively shown by Zahn (see his edition of the Ignatian epistles, p.
xii; 343, 381).
" The seven genuine epistles of Ignatius (all of which are men-
tioned by Eusebius in this chapter) fall into two groups, four having
been written from one place and three from another. The first four
— to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans — were
written from Smyrna, while Ignatius was on his way to Rome, as
we can learn from notices in the epistles themselves, and as is stated
below by Eusebius, who probably took his information from the
statements of the epistles, as we take ours. Ephesus, Magnesia,
and Tralles lay to the south of Smyrna, on one of the great highways
of Asia Minor. But Ignatius was taken by a road which lay further
north, passing through Philadelphia and Sardis (see Lightfoot, I. 33
sq.), and thus did not visit the three cities to which he now sends
epistles from Smyrna. The four epistles written from Smyrna con-
1 68
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 36.
mentions Onesimus, its pastor ; ' and another to
the church of Magnesia, situated upon the Mse-
ander, in whicli he makes mention again of a
bishop Damas ; and finally one to the church of
Tralles, whose bishop, he states, was at that
6 time Polybius. In addition to these he wrote
also to the church of Rome, entreating
them not to secure his release from martyrdom,
and thus rob him of his earnest hope. In con-
firmation of what has been said it is proper to
quote briefly from this epistle. He writes
7 as follows : * " From Syria even unto Rome
I fight with wild beasts, by land and by sea,
by night and by day, being bound amidst ten
leopards,'' that is, a company of soldiers who
only become worse when they are well treated.
In the midst of their wrongdoings, however, I
am more fully learning discipleship, but I
8 am not thereby justified.^" May I have joy
of the beasts that are prepared for me ; and
I pray that I may find them ready ; I will even
coax them to devour me quickly that they may
not treat me as they have some whom they have
refused to touch through fear." And if they are
unwilling, I will compel them. Forgive me.
9 I know what is expedient for me. Now do I
begin to be a disciple. May naught of things
visible and things invisible envy me ; ^- that I may
attain unto Jesus Christ. Let fire and cross and
attacks of wild beasts, let wrenching of bones,
cutting of limbs, crushing of the whole body,
tortures of the devil, — let all these come upon
me if only I may attain unto Jesus Christ."
10 These things he wrote from the above-
mentioned city to the churches referred to.
And when he had left Smyrna he wrote again
from Troas^^ to the Philadelphians and to the
church of Smyrna ; and particularly to Polycarp,
who presided over the latter church. And since
he knew him well as an apostolic man, he com-
mended to him, like a true and good shepherd,
the flock at Antioch, and besought him to care
tain no indication of the chronological order in which they were
written, and whether Eusebius in his enumeration followed the
manuscript of the epistles which he used (our present MSS. give an
entirely different order, which is not at all chronological and does
not even keep the two groups distinct), or whether he exercised his
own judgment, we do not know.
' Of this Onesimus, and of Damas and Polybius mentioned just
below, we know nothing more.
* Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. chap. 5.
" AeoTTixpSots. This is the earliest use of this word in any extant
writing, and an argument has been drawn from this fact against the
authenticity of the epistle. For a careful discussion of the matter,
see Lightfoot's edition. Vol. II. p. 212.
'" Compare i Cor. iv. 4.
" Compare the instances of this mentioned by Eusebius in Bk.
V. chap. I, § 42, and in Bk. VIII. chap. 7.
'- The translation of this sentence is Lightfoot's, who prefers
with Rufinus and the Syriac to read the optative fijAuio-at instead of
the infinitive ^"jjAuxrai, which is found in most of the MSS. and is
given by Heinichen and the majority of the other editors. The
sense seenis to require, as Lightfoot asserts, the optative rather than
the infinitive.
'3 That Troas was the place from which Ignatius wrote to the
Philadelphians, to the Smyrnaeans, and to Polycarp is clear from
indications in the epistles themselves. The chronological order in
which the three were written is uncertain. He had visited both
churches upon his journey to Troas and had seen Polycarp in
Smyrna.
diligently for it." And the same man, 11
writing to the Smyrnaeans, used the follow-
ing words concerning Christ, taken I know not
whence : ^ " But I know and believe that he was
in the flesh after the resurrection. And when
he came to Peter and his companions he said to
them. Take, handle me, and see that I am not
an incorporeal spirit.^® And immediately
they touched him and beheved." " Ire- 12
naeus also knew of his martyrdom and men-
tions his epistles in the following words :^^ "As
one of our people said, when he was condemned
to the beasts on account of his testimony unto
God, I am God's wheat, and by the teeth of wild
beasts am I ground, that I may be found
pure bread." Polycarp also mentions these 13
letters in the epistle to the Philippians
which is ascribed to him.^^ His words are as
follows : ^ " I exhort all of you, therefore, to be
obedient and to practice all patience such as ye
saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed
Ignatius and Rufus and Zosimus,-^ but also in
others from among yourselves as well as in Paul
himself and the rest of the apostles ; being per-
suaded that all these ran not in vain, but in faith
and righteousness, and that they are gone to their
rightful place beside the Lord, with whom also
they suffered. For they loved not the present
world, but him that died for our sakes and
was raised by God for us." And afterwards 14
he adds : -^ " You have written to me, both
you and Ignatius, that if any one go to Syria he
may carry with him the letters from you. And
this I will do if I have a suitable opportunity,
either I myself or one whom I send to be
an ambassador for you also. The epistles 15
of Ignatius which were sent to us by him
and the others which we had with us we sent to
you as you gave charge. They are appended
to this epistle, and from them you will be able
'* See Ep. ad Polycarp. chap. 7.
'5 Ep. ad Siiiyf. chap. 3. Jerome, quoting this passage from
Ignatius in his dc vir. ill. 16, refers it to the gospel which h.nd
lately been translated by him (according to dc vir. ill. 3), viz.: the
Gospel of the Nazareiies (or the Gospel according to the He-
brews). In his Comment, in Isaiam, Bk. XVIIi. introd., Jerome
quotes the same passage again, referring it to the same go.spel
{Evangelium quod Hebra'orum lectitant Nazami). But in
Origen de prin. prasf. 8, the phrase is quoted as taken from th^
Teaching of Peter {''''qui Petri doc tr in a apellattir").
Eusebius' various references to the Gospel according to the He-
brews show that he was personally actiuainted with it (see above,
chap. 25, note 24), and knowing his great thoroughness in going
through the books which he had access to, it is impossible to sup-
pose that if this passage quoted from Ignatius were in the Gos-
pel according to the Hebrews he should not have known it. We
seem then to be driven to the conclusion that the passage did not
originally stand in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but was
later incorjiorated cither from the Teaching of Peter, m which
Origen found it, or from some common source or oral tradition.
'" ^niiinvLov ao-uJurtToi'. ■' Compare Luke xxiv. 39.
'8 Iren.eus, Adv. Hirr. V. 28. 4.
'» On Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, see Bk. IV. chap.
14, note 16.
-" Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 9.
=' Of these men, Rufus and Zosimus, we know nothing.
-- Polycarp, E/>. ad Phil. chap. 13. The genuineness of this
chapter, which bears such strong testimony to the Ignatian epistles,
has been questioned by some scholars, but without good grounds.
See below, Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16,
III. 3S.]
THE WRITINGS OF CLEMENT OF
ROMli.
169
to derive great advantage. For they comprise
faith and patience, and every kind of edification
that pertaineth to our Lord." So much concern-
ing Ignatius. But he was succeeded by Heros"''
in the episcopate of the church of Antioch.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
The Evangelists that 7vcrc still Eminent at that
Time.
1 Among those that were celebrated at that
time was Quadratus,' who, report says, was
renowned along with the daughters of Philip for
his prophetical gifts. And there were many
others besides these who were known in those
days, and who occupied the iirst place among
the successors of the apostles. And they also,
being illustrious disciples of such great men,
built up the foundations of the churches which
had been laid by the apostles in every place, and
preached the Gospel more and more widely and
scattered the saving seeds of the kingdom of
heaven far and near throughout the whole
2 world." For indeed most of the disciples of
that time, animated by the divine word with
a more ardent love for philosophy,^ had already
fulfilled the command of the Saviour, and had
distributed their goods to the needy.'* Then
starting out upon long journeys they performed
the office of evangelists, being filled with the
desire to preach Christ to those who had not yet
heard the word of faith, and to deliver to
3 them the divine Gospels. And when they
had only laid the foundations of the faith in
foreign places, they appointed others as pastors,
and entrusted them with the nurture of those
that had recently been brought in, while they
themselves went on again to other countries and
nations, with the grace and the co-operation of
-■* According to Eusebius' Chronicle Heros became bishop of
Antioch in the tenth year of Trajan (107 a.d.)i and was succeeded
by Cornelius in the twelfth year of Hadrian (128 a.d.). In the
History he is mentioned only once more (Bk. IV. chap. 20), and no
dates are given. The dates found in the Chronicle are entirely
unreliable (see on the dates of all the early Antiochian bishops, Har-
nack's Zcit des Ignatius). Of Heros himself we have no trust-
worthy information. His name appears in the later martyrologies,
and one of the spurious Ignatian epistles is addressed to him.
1 This Quadratus had considerable reputation as a prophet, as
may be gathered from Eusebius' mention of him here, and also from
the reference to him in the anonymous work against the Montanists
(see below, Bk. V. chap. 16). We know nothing about this Quad-
ratus except what is told us in these two passages, unless we
identify him, as many do, with Quadratus the apologist mentioned
below in Bk. IV. chap. 3. This identification is possible, but by no
means certain. See Bk. IV. chap. 3, note 2.
- This rhetorical flourish arouses the suspicion that Eusebius, al-
though he says there were " many others " that were well known in
those days, was unacquainted with the names of such persons as we,
too, are unacquainted with them. None will deny that there may
have been some men of prominence in the Church at this time, but
Eusebius apparently had no more information to impart in regard to
them than he gives us in this chapter, and he makes up for his lack
of facts in a way which is not at all uncommon.
2 That is, an ascetic mode of life. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note g.
^ See Matt. xix. 21. Eusebius agrees with nearly all the Fathers,
and with the Roman Catholic Church of the past and present, in his
misinterpretation of this advice given by Christ to the rich young
man.
God. For a great many wonderful works were
done through them by the power of the divine
Spirit, so that at the first hearing whole multi-
tudes of men eagerly embraced the religion
of the Creator of the universe. But since 4
it is impossible for us to enumerate the
names of all that became shepherds or evange-
lists in the churches throughout the world in the
age immediately succeeding the apostles, we
have recorded, as was fitting, the names of
those only who have transmitted the apostolic
doctrine to us in writings still extant.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
The Epistle of Clement and the Writings falsely
ascribed to him.
Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles 1
which we have mentioned,^ and Clement in
his epistle which is accepted by all, and which
he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to
the church of Corinth.^ In this epistle he gives
many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its
expressions, thus showing most plainly that
it is not a recent production. Wherefore it 2
has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the
other writings of the apostle. For as Paul hatl
written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some
say that the evangelist Luke, others that this
Clement himself, translated the epistle. The 3
latter seems more probable, because the
epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have
a similar character in regard to style, and still
further because the thoughts contained in the
two works are not very different.^
But it must be observed also that there is 4
said to be a second epistle of Clement. But
we do not know that this is recognized like the
former, for we do not find that the ancients
have made any use of it.^ And certain men 5
have lately brought forward other wordy and
1 In chap. 36, above. ^ See above, chap. i6.
3 On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the various traditions as to
its authorship, see above, chap. 3, note 17.
^ Eusebius is the first one to mention the ascription of a second
epistle to Clement, but after the fifth century such an epistle (whether
the one to which Eusebius here refers we cannot tell) was in com-
mon circulation and was quite widely accepted as genuine. This
epistle is still extant, in a mutilated form in the Alexandrian MS.,
complete in the MS. discovered by Bryennios in Constantinople in
1875. The publication of the complete work proves, what had long
been suspected, that it is not an epistle at all, h\it a homily. It can-
not have been written by the author of the first epistle of Clement,
nor can it belong to the first century. It was probably written in
Rome about the middle of the second century (see Harnack's articles
in the Zeilschrift fur KirchengescJiichte, Vol. I. p. 264-283 and
329-364), and is the oldest extant homily, and as such possesses con-
siderable interest. It has always gone by the name of the Second
Epistle of Clement, and hence continues to be so called although the
title is a misnomer, for neither is it an epistle, nor is it by Clement.
It is published in all the editions of the apostolic Fathers, but only
those editions that have appeared since the discovery of the com-
plete homily by Bryennios are now of value. Of these, it is neces-
sary to mention only Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn's Patritm
Apost. Opera, 2d ed., 1876, in which Harnack's prolegomena and
notes are especially valuable, and the appendix to Lightfoot's edi-
lyo
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 38.
lengthy writings under his name, containing dia-
logues of Peter and Apion/ But no mention
has been made of these by the ancients ; for
they do not even preserve the pure stamp of
apostolic orthodoxy. The acknowledged writ-
ing of Clement is well known. We have spoken
also of the works of Ignatius and Polycarp.''
CHAPTER XXXIX.
The Writings of Papias.
1 There are extant five books of Papias,
which bear the title Expositions of Oracles
of the Lord.^ Irenseus makes mention of these
tion of Clement (1877), which contains the full text, notes, and an
English translation. English translation also in the Ante-Niceiic
Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. VII. p. 509 sq. Compare the article by Sal-
mon in the Diet, of Christian Biography and Harnack's articles
in the Zcitschr.f. Kirchcngcsch. referred to above.
^ There are extant a number of Pseudo-Clementine writings of
the third and following centuries, the chief among which purports
to contain a record made by Clement of discourses of the apostle
Peter, and an account of Clement's family history and of his travels
with Peter, constituting, in fact, a sort of didactico-historical ro-
mance. This exists now in three forms (the Homilies, Recogni-
tions, and Epitome), all of which are closely related; though
whether the first two (the last is simply an abridgment of the first)
are drawn from a common original, or whether one of them is the
original of the other, is not certain. The works are more or less
Ebionitic in character, and play an important part in the history of
early Christian literature. For a careful discussion of them, see
Salmon's article Clementine Literature, in the Diet, of Christian
Biography; and for the literature of the subject, which is very ex-
tensive, see especially Schaff's Church History, II. p. 435 sq.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth books of the Homilies contain ex-
tended conversations purporting to have been held between Clement
and Apion, the famous antagonist of the Jews (see Bk. II. chap. 5,
notes). It is quite possible that the " wordy and lengthy writings, con-
taining dialogues of Peter and Apion," which Eusebius refers to here
may be identical with the Homilies, in which case we must suppose
Eusebius' language to be somewhat inexact; for the dialogues in the
Homilies are between Clement and Apion, not between Peter and
Apion. It seems more probable, however, when we realize the vast
number of works of a similar character which were in circulation
during the third and subsequent centuries, that Eusebius refers here
to another work, belonging to the same general class, which is now
lost. If such a work existed, it may well have formed a basis for
the dialogues between Clement and Apion given in the Homilies.
In the absence of all further evidence of such a work, we must leave
the matter quite undecided. It is not necessary here to enumerate
the other Pseudo-Clementine works which are still extant. Compare
SchafTs Church History, II. 648 sq. Clement's name was a favorite
one with pseudographers of the early Church, and works of all kinds
were published under his name. The most complete collection of
these spurious works is found in Migne's Pair. Greec. Vols. I.
and II. 8 In chap. 36, above.
1 AoyiMi/ KvptaKu)!' e|r)y))<retT, This work is no longer extant,
but a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Irenaeus,
Eusebius, and others, which are published in the various editions of
the Apostolic Fathers (see especially Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn's
edition. Vol. I. Appendix), and by Routh in his Rel. Sacrcr, I. p. 3-
16. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.).
Vol. I. p. 151 sq. The exact character of the work has been long and
sharply disputed. Some contend that it was a record of oral tra-
ditions in regard to the Lord which Papias h.ad gathered, together
with a commentary upon these traditions, others that it was a com-
plete Gospel, others that it was a commentary upon an already ex-
isting Gospel or Gospels. The last is the view which accords best
with the language of Eusebius, and it is widely accepted, though
there is controversy among those who accept it as to whether the
Gospel or Gospels which he used are to be identified with either of
our canonical Gospels. But upon this question we cannot dwell at
this point. Lightfoot, who believes that a written text lay at the
base of Papias' work, concludes that the work contained, first, the
text; secondly, " the interpretations which explained the text, and
which were the main object of the work "; and thirdly, the oral tra-
ditions, which "were subordinate to the interpretation" {Con-
temporary Review, 1875, II. p. 389). This is probably as good
a description of the plan of Papias' work as can be given, whatever
decision may be reached as to the identity of the text which he used
with any one of our Gospels. Lightfoot has adduced strong argu-
ments for his view, and has discussed at length various other A-iews
which it is not necessary to repeat here. On the significance of the
as the only works written by him,- in the follow-
ing words : ^ " These things are attested by
Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of
John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth
book. For five books have been written by
him." These are the words of Irenaeus.
But Papias himself in the preface to his 2
discourses by no means declares that he
was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the
holy apostles, but he shows by the words which
he uses that he received the doctrines of the
faith from those who were their friends.''
He says : " But I shall not hesitate also to 3
put down for you along with my interpreta-
word Aoyta, see below, note 26. As remarked there, Adyia cannot he
confined to words or discourses only, and therefore the "oracles"
which Papias expounded in his work may well have included, so far
as the title is concerned, a complete Gospel or Gospels. In the ab-
sence of the work itself, however, we are left entirely to conjecture,
though it must be remarked that in the time of Papias at le,Tst some
of our Gospels were certainly in existence and already widely ac-
cepted. It is difficult, therefore, to suppose that if written docu-
ments lay at the basis of Papias' work, as we have concluded that
they did, that they can have been other than one or more of the
commonly accepted Gospels. But see Lightfoot's article already
referred to for a discussion of this question. The date of the com-
position of Papias' work is now commonly fixed at about the middle
of the second century, probably nearer 130 than 150 a. d. The books
and articles that have been written upon this work are far too numer-
ous to mention. Besides the article by Lightfoot in the Contetn-
porary Reviezu, which has been already referred to, we should
mention also Salmon's article in the Diet, of CJi} istian Biography,
Schleiermacher's essay in the Studien jtnd Kritiketi, 1832, p. 735
sq., — the first critical discussion of Papias' testimony in regard to
the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and still valuable, — dissertations
by Weiffenbach, 1874 and 1878, and by Leimbach, 1875, with reviews
of the last two in various periodicals, notably the articles by Hilgen-
feld in his Zeitschrift f'tir iviss. Theol. 1875, 1877, 1879. See also
p. 389, note, below. On the life of Papias, see above, chap. 36, note 2.
2 109 ixovMV avTiZ yparjidi'Tiou. Irena;us does not expressly say
that these were the only works written by Papias. He simply says,
" For five books have been written by him " (ecm yap ainw TrtiTe
^i.p\ia (Tvi'TeTaytiei'a). Eusebius' interpretation of Irenseus' words
is not, however, at all unnatural, and probably expresses Irenseus'
meaning. 3 Irenseus, .4d7i. Ha:r. V. 33. 4.
^ The justice of this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the state-
ment of Irenaeus, has been questioned by many, who have held that,
in the pass.age quoted just below from Papias, the same John is
meant in both cases. See the note of Schaff in his Church History,
II. p. 697 sq. A careful e.xegesis of the passage from Papias quoted
by Eusebius seems, however, to lead necessarily to the conclusion
which Eusebius draws, that Papias refers to two diff<;rent persons
bearing the same name, — John. In fact, no other conclusion can
be reached, unless we accuse Papias of the most stupid and illogical
method of writing. Certainly, if he knew of but one John, there is
no possible excuse for mentioning him twice in the one passage. On
the other hand, if we accept Eusebius' interpretation, we are met by
a serious difficulty in the fact that we are obliged to assume that there
lived in Asia Minor, early in the second centurj', a man to whom
Papias appeals as possessing exceptional authority, but who is men-
tioned by no other Father; who is, in fact, otherwise an entirely un-
known personage. And still further, no reader of Papias' work, be-
fore the time of Eusebius, gathered from that work, so far as we
know, a single hint that the John with whom he was acquainted was
any other than the apostle John. These difficulties are so serious
that they have led many to deny that Papias meant to refer to a sec-
ond Jolui, in spite of his apparently clear reference to such a per-
son. Among those who deny this second John's existence are such
scholars as Zahn and Salmon. (Compare, for instance, the latter's
able article on Joannes the Presbyter, in the Diet, of Christian
Biography.) In reply to their arguments, it may be said that the
silence of all other early writers does not necessarily disprove the
existence of a second John; for it is quite conceivable that all trace
of him should be swallowed up in the reputation of his greater nanie-
s.akc who lived in the same place. Moreover, it is quite conceivable
that Papias, writing for those who were well acquainted with both
Johns, may have had no suspicion that any one would confound the
presbyter with the apostle, and would imagine tliat he was referring
to the latter when he was speaking of his personal friend John; and
therefore he would have no reason for stating expressly that there
were two Johns, and for expressly distinguishing the one from the
other. It was, then, quite natural that Iren;eiis, a whole generation
later, knowing that Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and
finding constant mention of a John in Papias' works, should simply
take for granted that the same John was meant; for by his time the
lesser John may easily, in the minds of most people, have become
in. 39-]
THE WRITINGS OF PAPIAS.
171
tions* whatsoever things I have at any time
learned carefully from the elders" and carefully
remembered, guaranteeii>g their truth. For
I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in
those that speak much, but in those that teach
the truth ; not in those that relate strange com-
mandments, but in those that deliver ^ the com-
mandments given by the Lord to faith,* and
4 springing from the truth itself. If, then,
any one came, who had been a follower of
the elders, I questioned him in regard to the
words of the elders, — what Andrew or what
Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by
Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Mat-
lost in tlie tradition of his greater namesake. In view of these pos-
sibilities, it cannot be said that the silence of other Fathers in regard
to this John is fatal to his existence; and if this is so, we are hardly
justified in doing such violence to Papias' language as is required to
identify the two Johns mentioned by him in the passage quoted be-
low. Among those who accept Eusebius' conclusion, that Papias
refers to two different persons, are such scholars as Tischendorf,
Donaldson, Westcott and Lightfoot. If Eusebius has recovered for
us from the ancient history of the Church an otherwise unknown
personage, it will not be the only time that he has corrected an error
committed by all his predecessors. In this case, as in a number of
other cases, I believe Eusebius' wide information, sharp-sightedness,
and superiority to the trammels of traditionalism receive triumphant
vindication, and we may accept his conclusion that Papias was per-
sonally acquainted with a second John, who was familiarly known
as " the Presbyter," and thus distinguished from the apostle John,
who could be called a presbyter or elder only in the general sense in
which all the leading men of his generation were elders (see below,
note 6), and coiild not be designated emphatically as " ilie presby-
ter." In regard to the connection of this " presbyter John" with
the Apocalypse, see below, note 14. But although Papias distin-
guishes, as we may conclude, between two Johns in the passage re-
ferred to, and elsewhere, according to Eusebius, pronounces himself
a hearer of the second John, it does not necessarily follow that Ire-
nasus was mistaken in saying that he was a hearer of the apostle
John; for Irenaeus may have based his statement upon information
received from his teacher, Polycarp, the friend of Papias, and not
upon the passage quoted by Eusebius, and hence Papias majr have
been a hearer of both Johns. At the same time, it must be said that
if Papias had been a disciple of the apostle John, he could scarcely
have failed to state the fact expressly somewhere in his works; and
if he had stated it anywhere, Eusebius could hardly have overlooked
it. The conclusion, therefore, seems most probable that Eusebius
is right in correcting Irenseus' statement, and that the latter based
his report upon a misinterpretation of Papias' own words. In that
case, we have no authority for speaking of Papias as a disciple of
John the apostle.
5 This sentence gives strong support to the view that oral tradi-
tions did not form the basis of Papias' work, but that the basis con-
sisted of written documents, which he interpreted, and to which he
then added the oral traditions which he refers to here. See Con-
temporary Reviciu, 1885, II. p. 388 sq. The words rais epjUTji/eiai?
have been translated by some scholars, " the interpretations of
them," thus making the book consist only of these oral traditions
with interpretations of them. But this translation is not warranted
by the Greek, and the also at the beginning of the sentence shows
that the work must have contained other matter which preceded
these oral traditions and to which the " interpretations" belong.
* As Lightfoot points out {Contemp. Rev. ibid. p. 379 sq.),
Papias uses the term " elders " in a general sense to denote the
Fathers of the Church in the generations preceding his own. It
thus includes both the apostles and their immediate disciples. The
term was thus used in a general sense by later Fathers to denote all
earlier Fathers of the Church ; that is, those leaders of the Church
belonging to generations earlier than the writers themselves. The
term, therefore, cannot be confined to the apostles alone, nor can it
be confined, as some have thought (e.g. Wciffenbach in his Das
Papias Fragment), to ecclesiastical officers, presbyters in the
official sense. Where the word wpe<r/3u'T<pos is used in connection
with the second John (at the close of this extract from Papias), it is
apparently employed in its official sense. At least we cannot other-
wise easily understand how it could be used as a peculiar designa-
tion of this John, which should distinguish him from the other John.
For in the general sense of the word, in which Papias commonly
uses it, both Johns were elders. Compare Lightfoot's words in the
passage referred to above.
' Trapayn'o^eVoi?, instead of napayivofj.eva';, agreeing with ei'TO-
Aas. The latter is the common reading, but is not so well supported
by manuscript authority, and, as the easier reading, is to be rejected
in favor of the former. See the note of Heinichen in loco.
8 That is, " to those that believe, to those that are possessed of
faith."
thew, or by any other of the disciples of the
Lord, and what things Aristion " and the presby-
ter John,'" the disciples of the Lord, say. For I
did not think that what was to be gotten from
the books " would profit me as much as what
came from the living and abiding voice."
It is worth while observing here that the 5
name John is twice enumerated by him.'^
The first one he mentions in connection with
Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of
the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist ;
but the other John he mentions after an inter-
val, and places him among others outside of the
number of the apostles, puttin
him, and he distinctly calls him a presby
ter. This shows that the statement of those 6
is true, who say that there were two per-
sons in Asia that bore the same name, and that
there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which,
even to the present day, is called John's." It is
important to notice this. For it is probable
that it was the second, if one is not willing to
admit that it was the first that saw the Revela-
tion, which is ascribed by name to John.^'*
And Papias, of whom we are now speak- 7
ing, confesses that he received the words
of the apostles from those that followed them,
but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion
g Aristion before
" Of this Aristion we know only what we can gather from this
mention of him by Papias. '" See above, note 6.
'1 6K TMi' Pifi\iujv. These words have been interpreted by many
critics as implying that Papias considered the written Gospel ac-
counts, which were extant in his time, of small value, and preferred
to them the oral traditions which he picked up from " the elders."
But as Lightfoot has shown {Hid. p. 390 sq.), this is not the natural
interpretation of Papias' words, and makes him practically stultify
and contradict himself. He cannot have considered the written
documents which he laid at the base of his work as of little value,
nor can he have regarded the writings of Matthew and Mark, which
he refers to in this chapter as extant in his time, and the latter of
which he praises for its accuracj', as inferior to the oral traditions,
which came to him at best only at second hand. It is necessary to
refer the roif /Si/SAicur, as Lightfoot does, to "interpretations" of
the Gospel accounts, which had been made by others, and to which
Papias prefers the interpretations or expositions which he has re-
ceived from the disciples of the apostles. This interpretation of
the word alone saves us from difficulties and Papias from self-
stultification. '- See above, note 4.
'■* The existence of two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of
John is attested also by Dionysius of Alexandria (quoted in Bk. VII.
chap. 25, below) and by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 9). The latter,
however, says that some regard them both as memorials of the one
John, the apostle; and Zahn, in his Acta Joannis, p. cliv.sq., en-
deavors to prove that a church stood outside of the walls of FZphesus,
on the spot where John was buried, and another inside of the walls,
on the site of the house in which he had resided, and that thus two
spots were consecrated to the memory of a single John. The proof
which he brings in support of this may not lead many persons to
adopt his conclusions, and yet after reading his discussion of the
matter one must admit that the existence of two memorials in Ephe-
sus, such as Dionysius, Eusebius, and Jerome refer to, by no means
proves that more than one John was buried there.
" A similar suggestion had been already made by Dionysius in
the passage quoted by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 25, and Eusebius
was undoubtedly thinking of it when he wrote these words. The
suggestion is a very clever one, and yet it is only a guess, and does
not pretend to be more. Dionysius concludes that the Apocalypse
must have been written by some person named John, because it tes-
tifies to that fact itself; but the style, and other internal indications,
lead him to think that it cannot have been written by the author of
the fourth Gospel, whom he assumes to be John the apostle. He is
therefore led to suppose that the Apocalypse was written by some
other John. He does not pretend to say who that John was, but
thinks it must have been some John that resided in Asia; and he
then adds that there were said to be two tombs in Ephesus bearing
the name of John, — evidently implying, though he does not say it,
that he is inclined to think that this second John thus commemorated
was the author of the Apocalypse. It is plain from this that he had
172
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[III. 39-
sages
11
him
and the presbyter John. At least he mentions
them frequently by name, and gives their tra-
ditions in his writings. These things, we hope,
have not been uselessly adduced by us.
8 But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of
Papias which have been quoted, other pas-
from his works in which he relates some
other wonderful events which he claims to
9 have received from tradition. That Philip
the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his
daughters has been already stated.^^ But it must
be noted here that Papias, their contemporary,
says that he heard a wonderful tale from the
daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his
time ^^ one rose from the dead. And he tells
another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed
Barsabbas : that he drank a deadly poison, and
yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no
10 harm. The Book of Acts records that the
holy apostles after the ascension of the
Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with
Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen
in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their num-
ber. The account is as follows : " And they put
forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was
surnamed Justus, and Matthias ; and they
prayed and said."^^ The same writer gives
also other accounts which he says came to
through unwritten tradition, certain strange
parables and teachings of the Saviour, and
some other more mythical things.^** To
these belong his statement that there will
be a period of some thousand years after the
resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom
of Christ will be set up in material form on this
very earth.^'' I suppose he got these ideas
no tradition whatever in favor of this theory, that it was solely an
hypothesis arising from critical difficulties standing in the way of
the ascription of the book to the apostle John. Eusebius sees in
this suggestion a very welcome solution of the difficulties with which
he feels the acceptance of the book to be beset, and at once states it
ns a possibility that this " presbyter John," whom he has discovered
in the writings of Papias, may have been the author of the book. BiJl
the authenticity of the Apocalypse was too firmly established to be
shaken by such critical and theological difficulties as influenced
Dionysius, Eusebius, and a few others, and in consequence nothing
came of the suggestion made here by Eusebius. In the present cen-
tury, however, the " presbyter John " has again played an impor-
t;uit part among some critics as the possible author of certain of the
Johannine writings, though the authenticity of the Apocalypse has
(until very recently) been so commonly accepted even by the most
negative critics that the " presbyter John " has not figured at all as
the author of it; nor indeed is he likely to in the future.
"" In chap. 31, above. On the confusion of the evangelist with
the apostle Philip, see that chapter, note 6.
'" That is, in the time of Philip. '^ Acts i. 23.
'* Compare the extract from Papias given by Ircnseus {Adv.
Iloer. v. 32), in which is contained a famous parable in regard to
the fertility of the millennium, which is exceedingly materialistic in
its nature, and evidently apocryphal. " The days will come when
vines shall grow, each h.aving ten thousand branches, and in each
branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig ten thousand shoots,
and in every one of the shoots ten thousand grapes, and every grape
when pressed will give five and twenty measures of wine," &c.
!'■' Chiliasm, or millcnnarianism, — that is, the belief in a visible
reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years before the general
judgment, — was very widespread in the early Church. Jewish
chiliasm was very common at about the beginning of the Christian
era, and is represented in the voluminous apocalyptic literature of
that day. Christian chiliasm was an outgrowth of the Jewish, but
spiritualized it, and fixed it upon the second, instead of the first,
coming of Christ. The chief I'iblical support for this doctrine is
found in Rev. xx, 1-6, and the fact that this book was appealed to
12
through a misunderstanding of the apostolic ac-
counts, not perceiving that the things said by
them were spoken mystically in figures.
For he appears to have been of very limited 13
understanding,^ as one can see from his
discourses. But it was due to him that so many
of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like
opinion, urging in their own support the anti-
quity of the man ; as for instance Irenaeus and
any one else that may have proclaimed
similar views.-^ Papias gives also in his 14
own work other accounts of the words of
the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was
mentioned above, and traditions as handed
down by the presbyter John ; to which we refer
those who are fond of learning. But now we
must add to the words of his which we have
already quoted the tradition which he gives in
regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
It is in the following words : " This also 15
the presbyter " said : Mark, having become
the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately,
though not indeed in order, whatsoever he re-
membered of the things said or done by Christ.""'
so constantly by chiliasts in support of their views was the reason
why Dionysius, Eusebius, and others were anxious to disprove its
apostolic authorship. Chief among the chiliasts of the ante-Nicene
age were the author of the epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Mar-
tyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; while the principal opponents of the
doctrine were Caius, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Euse-
bius. After the time of Constantine, chiliasm was more and more
widely regarded as a heresy, and received its worst blow from
Augustine, who framed in its stead the doctrine, which froni his time
on was commonly accepted in the Church, that the millennium is the
present reign of Christ, which began with his resurrection. See
Schaff's Church History, II. p. 613 sq., for the history of the doc-
trine in the ante-Nicene Church and for the literature of the subject.
-" (Tij>6&pri o-^tKpo? r'ov I'oOi'. Eusebius' judgment of Papias may
have been unfavorably influenced by his hostility to the strong chili-
asm of the latter; and yet a perusal of the extant fragments of Pa-
pias' writings will lead any one to think that Eusebius was not far
wrong in his estimate of the man. On the genuineness of the words
in his praise, given by some MSS., in chap. 36, § 2, see note 3 on
that chapter. -^ See above, note 19.
22 We cannot, in the absence of the context, say with certainty
that the presbyter here referred to is the " presbyter John," of whom
Papias has so much to say, and who is mentioned in the previous
paragraph, and yet this seems quite probable. Compare Weiflen-
bach's £)ZL' Papias Fra^mente iiicr Marcus 7nid Matthaeus,
p. 26 sq.
23 Papias is the first one to connect the Gospel of Mark with
Peter, but the tradition recorded by him was universally accepted by
those who came after him (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4).
The relation of this Gospel of Mark to our canonical Gospel has
been a very sharply disputed point, but there is no good reason for
distinguishing the Gospel referred to here from our second Gospel,
which corresponds excellently to the description given by Papias.
Compare the remarks of Lightfoot, ibid. p. 393 sq. We know from
other sources (e.g. Justin I\Iartyr's Dial. c. 106) that our second
Gospel was in existence in any case before the middle of the second
century, and therefore there is no reason to suppose that Papias was
thinking of any other Gospel when he spoke of the Gospel written
by Mark as the interpreter of Peter. Of course it does not follow
from this that it was actually our second Gospel which Mark wrote,
and of whose composition Papias here speaks. He may have writ-
ten a Gospel which afterward formed the basis of our present Gos-
pel, or was one of the sources of the synoptic tradition as a whole;
that is, he may have written what is commonly known as the "Ur-
Marcus" (see above, Bk. 11. chap. 15, note 4). As to that, we
cannot decide with absolute certainty, but we may say that Papias
certainly understood the tradition which he gives to refer to our
Gospel of Mark. The exact significance of the word tpixrivtvTri^ Tif,
used in this sentence has been much disputed. It seems best to give
It its usual significance, — the significance which we attach to the
English word " interpreter." See Weiffenbach, ibid. p. 37 scj. It
may be, supposing the report to be correct, that Peter found it ad-
vantageous to have some one more familiar than himself with the
language of the people among whom he labored to assist him in his
preaching. What language it was for which he needed an inter-
preter we cannot say. We might think naturally of Latin, but it is
III. 390
THE WRITINGS OF PAPIAS.
T^n
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him,
but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who
adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers,
but with no intention of giving a connected ac-
count of the Lord's discourses,"' so that Mark
committed no error while he thus wrote some
things as he remembered them. For he was
careful of one thing, not to omit any of the
things which he had heard, and not to state any
of them falsely." These things are related
16 by Papias concerning Mark. But concern-
ing Matthew he writes as follows : " So
then^ Matthew wrote the oracles in the He-
brew language, and every one interpreted them
as he was able." -^ And the same writer uses
not impossible that Greek or that both languages were meant; for
Peter, although of course possessed of some acquaintance with Greek,
might not have been familiar enough with it to preach in it with per-
fect ease. The words " though not indeed in order" (ov /aeVroi ra-
fei) have also caused considerable controversy. But they seem to
refer chiefly to a lack of chronological arrangement, perhaps to a
lack of logical arrangement also. The implication is that Mark
wrote down without regard to order of any kind the words and deeds
of Christ which he remembered. Lightfoot and most other critics
have supposed that this accusation of a " lack of order" implies the
existence of another written Gospel, exhibiting a different order,
with which Papias compares it (e.g. with the Gospel of Matthew, as
Weiss, Bleck, Holtzmann, and others think; or with John, as Light-
foot, Zahn, Renan, and others suppose) . This is a natural supposi-
tion, but it is quite possible that Papias in speaking of this lack of
order is not thinking at ail of another written Gospel, but merely of
the order of events which he had received from tradition as the true
one.
-* \6yu>v, " discourses," or Aoyiior, " oracles." The two words
are about equally supported by MS. authority. The latter is
adopted by the majority of the editors; but it is more likely that
it arose from AdYaji/ under the influence of the Ao-yiio^, which oc-
curred in the title of Papias' work, than that it was changed into
X.6yuiv. The matter, however, cannot be decided, and the alterna-
tive reading must in either case be allowed to stand. See the notes
of Burton and Heinichen, z« loco.
2S ixkv ovv. These words show plainly enough that this sentence
in regard to Matthew did not in the work of Papias immediately
follow the passage in regard to Mark, quoted above. Both passages
are evidently torn out of their context; and the latter apparently
stood at the close of a description of the origin of Matthew's Gospel.
That this statement in regard to Matthew rests upon the authority
of " the presbyter " we are consequently not at liberty to assert.
-" On the tradition that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel, see
above, chap. 24, note 5. Our Greek Gospel of Matthew was cer-
tainly in existence at the time Papias wrote, for it is quoted in the
epistle of Barnabas, which was written not later than the first
quarter of the second century. There is, therefore, no reason for
testimonies from the first Epistle of John^ and
from that of Peter likewise.-** And he relates
another story of a woman, who was accused of
many sins before the Lord, which is contained
in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.^
These things we have thought it necessary to
observe in addition to what has been already
stated.
assuming that the Gospel of Matthew which Papias was acquainted
with was a different Gospel from our own. This, however, does not
prove that the Adyia which Matthew wroie (supposing Papias'
report to be correct) were identical with, or even of the same nature
as our Gospel of Matthew. It is urged by many that the word
Ao-yia could be used only to describe a collection of the words or
discourses of the Lord, and hence it is assumed that Matthew wrote
a work of this kind, which of course is quite a different thing from
our first Gospel. But Lightfoot has shown (//'/>/. p. 399 sq.) that
the word Aoyia, " oracles," is not necessarily confined to a collection
of discourses merely, but that it may be used to describe a work
containing also a narrative of events. This being the case, it cannot
be said that Matthew's Aoyia must necessarily have been something
different from our present Gospel. Still our Greek Matthew is cer-
tainly not a translation of a Hebrew original, and hence there may
be a long step between Matthew's Hebrew Aoyia and our Greek
Gospel. But if our Greek Matthew was known to Papias, and if
it is not a translation of a Hebrew original, then one of two alterna-
tives follows: either he could not accept the Greek Maithew, which
was in current use (that is, our canonical Matthew), or else he was
not acquainted with the Hebrew Matthew. Of the former alterna-
tive we have no hint in the fragments preserved to us, while the
latter, from the way in which Papias speaks of these Hebrew Aoyia,
seems highly probable. It may, therefore, be said to be probable
that Papias, the first one that mentions a Hebrew Matthew, speaks
not from personal knowledge, but upon the authority of tradition
only.
" Since the first Epistle of John and the fourth Gospel are indis-
putably from the same hand (see above, chap. 24, note 18), Papias'
testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, which is what
his use of it implies, is indirect testimony to the apostolic authorship
of the Gospel also.
-8 On the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter, see above,
chap. 3, note i.
-" It is very likely that the story referred to here is identical
with the story of the woman taken in adulter^', given in some
MSS., at the close of the eighth chapter of John's Gospel. The
story was clearly not contained in the original Gospel of John,
but we do not know from what source it crept into that Gospel, pos-
sibly from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Eusebius
says the story related by Papias was found. It must be noticed that
Eusebius does not say that Papias took the story from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, but only that it was contained in that
Gospel. We are consequently not justified in claiming this state-
ment of Eusebius as proving that Papias himself was acquainted
with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see above, chap. 25,
note 24). He may have taken it thence, or he may, on the otlicr
hand, have taken it simply from oral tradition, the source whence
he derived so many of his accounts, or, possibly, from the lost origi-
nal Gospel, the " tJr-Matthaeus."
BOOK IV.
CHAPTER I.
The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during
the Reign of Trajan}
1 About the twelfth year of the reign of
Trajan the above-mentioned bishop of the
parish of Alexandria- died, and Primus,^ the
fourth in succession from the apostles, was
2 chosen to the office. At that time also
Alexander,^ the fifth in the line of succes-
sion from Peter and Paul, received the episco-
pate at Rome, after Evarestus had held the
office eight years,^
1 We still have lists of bishops as old as the end of the second
century. The most ancient is that of the Roman bishops given by
Irenseus (III. 3. 3) ; but this has no dates. The list is probably the
official catalogue as it had been handed down to the time of Eleu-
therus; but it is not authentic, as there was no monarchical episco-
pate in Rome at the time of Clement, nor even in the time of Hermas.
For other churches the oldest lists date from the end of the third
century. According to one interpretation of a passage from Hege-
sippus, quoted in chapter 22, below, Hegesippus drew up a list of
Roman bishops down to the time of Anicetus; and Bishop Lightfoot
thinks he has discovered this lost catalogue in Epiphanius, Hter.
XXVII. 6 (see his article in the Academy for May 27, 1887). If
Lightfoot is right, we have recovered the oldest Papal catalogue;
but it is very doubtful whether Hegesippus composed such a cata-
logue (see note on chip. 22), and even if he did, it is uncertain
whether the list which Epiphanius gives is identical with it. See
the writer's notice of I.ightfoot's article in the 'J'hcologischc Liiera-
iur-zCeitinig, 1S87; No. 18, Col. 435 scjq.
The list of Roman bishops which Eusebius gives is the same as
that of Irenae'is; but it has dates, while Irena;us' has none. From
what source Eusebius took his dates we do not know. His Clironi-
cle contains different dates. It is jMissible that the difference is
owing, in part, to defective transcriptions or translations; but it is
more probable that Eusebius himself discovered another source, be-
fore writing his History, which he considered more authentic, and
therefore substituted for the one he had used in his Clirouicle. I.ip-
sius (C/troiu'lo-^ic tier roiiihchen Bischo/e, p. 145) says, " We may
assume that the oldest catalogue extended as far as Eleutherus, but
rested upon historical knowledge only from Xystus, or, at the far-
thest, from Ale.xander d;)wn." On tlie chronology of the Roman
bishops in general, see especially the important work of l.ipsius just
referred to.
2 Ccrdon, mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 21.
2 'J'he Chronicle of Eusebius (.Armenian) makes Primus succeed
to the bishopric of Alexandria in the eleventh year of Trajan; the
version of Jerome, in the ninth. According to chap. 4, below, he
held office twelve years. No reliance can be placed upon any of the
figures. The .Vlexandrian church is shrouded in darkness until the
latter part of the second century, and all extant traditions in regard
to its history before th it time are about equally worthless. Of Pri-
mus himself we h ive no authentic knowledge, though he figures
somewhat in later tradiiion. .See Smith and Wace's Diet, of Chris-
tian liio'-^rafiltv, in loco.
* .Accor ling to ihe r//rrt«/f/r of Fiisebius (Armenian), Alexander
became bishop of Rome in the eighth year of Tr.njan; according to
Jerome's version, in the twelfth year. He is salt!, in chap. 4, be-
low, lo have died In the third year of Hadrian, after holding office
ten years, f^n th(> reliability of these dates, see note ij above. Of
Alexander's life and character we know nothing.
* On Evarestus, see Bk, III. chap, 34, note 3.
CHAPTER H.
The Calaffiiiies of the Jews during Traja7i's
Reign.
The teaching and the Church of our 1
Saviour flourished greatly and made prog-
ress from day to day ; but the calamities of the
Jews increased, and they underwent a constant
succession of evils. In the eighteenth year of
Trajan's reign ^ there was another disturbance of
the Jews, through which a great multitude
of them perished.^ For in Alexandria and 2
in the rest of Egypt, and also in CyTene,^
as if incited by some terrible and factious spirit,
they rushed into seditious measures against their
fellow-inhabitants, the Greeks. The insurrec-
tion increased greatly, and in the following year,
while Lupus was governor of all Egypt,^ it devel-
oped into a war of no mean magnitude.
In the first attack it happened that they were 3
victorious over the Greeks, who fled to Alex-
andria and imprisoned and slew the Jews that
were in the city. But the Jews of Cyrene, although
deprived of their aid, continued to plunder the
land of Egypt and to devastate its districts,^
under the leadership of Lucuas.*^ Against them
the emperor sent Marcius Turbo ' with a foot and
naval force and also with a force of cavalry.
He carried on the war against them for a 4
1 IIS A.D.
' Closs says: "According to Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 32, they slew
in Cyrene 220,000 persons with terrible cruelty. At the same time
there arose in Cyprus a disturbance of the Jews, who were very nu-
merous in that island. According to Dion, 240,000 of the inhabi-
tants were slain there. Their leader was Artemion." Compare
Dion Cassius, Hist. Rom. LXVIII. 32, and LXIX. 12 sq. I'he
Jews and the Greeks that dwelt together in different cities were
constantly getting into trouble. The Greeks scorned the Jews, and
the Jews in return hated the Greeks and stirred up many bloody
commotions against them. See Jost's Geschichte dcr Israeliten,
chap. HI. p. 181 sq. The word " another" in this passage is used
apparently with reference to the Jewish war under Vespasian, of
which Eusebius has spoken at length in the early part of the third
Book.
^ The Jews were very numerous both in Egypt and in Cyrene,
which lay directly west of Egypt. The Jews of Cyrene had a syna-
gogue at Jerusalem, according to Acts vi. 9.
•• Lupus is, to me at least, an otherwise unknown character.
^ I'd/moi. See Bk. II. chap. 17, note to.
0 Lucuas is called by Dion Cassius (LXVIII. 32) Andreas.
Miinter suggests that he may have borne a double name, a Jewish
and a Roman, as did many of the Jews of that time.
' Marcius Turbo was one of the most distinguished of the Roman
generals under Trajan and Hadrian, and finally became pra;torian
prefect under Hadrian. See Dion Cassius, LXIX. 18, and Spartian,
Hadr, 4-9, 15.
IV. 4.]
OUADRATUS AND ARISTIDES.
175
long time and fought many battles, and slew
many thousands of Jews, not only of those of
Cyrene, but also of those who dwelt in Egypt
and had come to the assistance of their king
5 Lucuas. But the emperor, fearing that the
Jews in Mesopotamia would also make an
attack upon the inhabitants of that country,
commanded Lucius Quintus** to clear the prov-
ince of them. And he having marched against
them slew a great multitude of those that dwelt
there ; and in consequence of his success he
was made governor of Judea by the emperor.
These events are recorded also in these very
words by the Greek historians that have written
accounts of those times.'"'
CHAPTER III.
The Apologists that wrote in Defense of the
Faith dufitig the Reign of Adria?i.
1 After Trajan had reigned for nineteen
and a half years ^ u:Elius Adrian became his
successor in the empire. To him Quadratus
addressed a discourse containing an apology for
* Lucius Quintus w?s an independent Moorish chief, who served
voluntarily in the Roman army and became one of Trajan's favorite
generals. He was made governor of Judea by Trajan, and was
afterward raised to the consulship. According to Themistius {Orat.
XVI.), Trajan atone time intended to make him his successor. See
Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 8, 22, 30, 32; LXIX. 2; Spartian, Hadr. 5,
7, and cf. Valesius' note on this passage.
^ The language of Eusebius might imply that he had other sources
than the Greek writers, but this does not seem to have been the case.
He apparently followed Dion Cassius for the most part, but evidently
had some other source (the same which Orosius afterward followed),
for he differs from Dion in the name of the Jewish leader, calling him
Lucuas instead of Andreas. The only extant accounts of these
affairs by Greek historians are those of Dion Cassius and Orosius,
but there were evidently others in Eusebius' time.
^ Trajan reigned from Jan. 27, 98, to Aug. 7 or 8, 117.
2 The importance of Quadratus' Apology in the mind of Euse-
bius is shown by his beginning the events of Hadrian's reign with
it, as well as by the fact that he gives it also in his Chronich', year
2041 of Abraham (124 to 125 a.d.), where he calls Quadratus "Au-
ditor Apostolonun.'" Eusebius gives few events in his Chroni-
cle, and therefore the reference to this is all the more significant.
We find no mention of Quadratus and Aristides before Eusebius,
and of the Apology of Quadratus we have only the few lines which
are given in this chapter. In the Chronicle Eusebius says that
Quadratus and Aristides addressed apologies to Hadrian during his
stay in Athens. One MS. of the Chronicle gives the date as 125
A.D. (2141 Abr.), and this is correct; for, according to Diirr {Die
Reisen dcs Kaisers Hadrian, Wien, 1881, p. 42 to 44, and 70 to 71),
Hadrian was in Athens from the fall of 125 to the summer of 126 and
from the spring of 129 to the spring of 130. Eusebius adds in his
Chronicle (but omits here) that these apologies were the cause of a
favorable edict from Hadrian, but this is incorrect. Eusebius (IV. 12)
makes a similar statement in regard to the Apology of Justin, making a
favorable edict (which has been proved to be unauthentic) of the Em-
peror Antoninus the result of it. (See Overbeck, Stiidien zur Ge-
schichte der alien Kirdie, I. 108 sq., 139.) Quadratus and Aris-
tides are the oldest apologists known to us. Eusebius does not
mention them again. This Quadratus must not be confounded with
Quadratus, bishop of Athens in the time of Marcus Aureliu?;, who
is mentioned in chap. 23; for the apologist Quadratus who belonged
to the time of the apostles can hardly have been a bishop during
the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Nor is there any decisive ground to
identify him with the prophet mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 37 and Bl<.
V. chap. 7, for Quadratus was a very common name, and the prophet
and the apologist seem to have belonged to different countries (see
Harnack, Ucberliefernng der griecli. Apol. p. 103). Many schol-
ars, however, identify the prophet and the apologist, and it must be
said that Eusebius' mention of the prophet in III. 37, and of the
apologist in IV. 3, without any qualifying phrases, looks as if one
well-known Quadratus were referred to. The matter must remain
undecided. Jerome speak-s of Quadratus and Aristides once in the
Chronicle, year 2142, and in de vir. ill. chap. 19 and 20. In chap.
19 he identifies Quadratus, the apologist, and Quadratus, the bishop
of Athens, but he evidently had no other source than Eusebius (as
our religion," because certain wicked men^ had
attemjited to trouble the Christians. The work
is still in the hands of a great many of the
brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear
proofs of the man's understanding and of
his apostolic orthodoxy.^ He himself re- 2
veals the early date at which he lived in the
following words : " But the works of our Saviour
were always present,^ for they were genuine : —
those that were healed, and those that were
raised from the dead, who were seen not only
when they were healed and when they were raised,
but were also always present ; and not merely
while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his
death, they were alive for quite a while, so that
some of them lived even to our day." ^ Such
then was Quadratus.
Aristides also, a believer earnestly de- 3
voted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an
apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian.^
His work, too, has been preserved even to the
present day by a great many persons.
CHAPTER IV.
The Bishops of Ro?ne and of Alexandria tmder
the Same Emperor}
In the third year of the same reign, Alexan-
der/ bishop of Rome, died, after holding office
was usually the case, so that he can very rarely be accepted as an
independent witness), and his statements here are the result simply
of a combination of his own. The later scattering traditions in
regard to Quadratus and Aristides (chiefly in the Martyrologies)
rest probably only upon the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome, and
whatever enlargement they offer is untrustworthy. The Apology
of Quadratus was perhaps e.xtant at the beginning of the seventh
century; see Photius, Cod. 162. One later tradition made Quadra-
tus the angel of Philadelphia, addressed in the Apocalypse; another
located him in Magnesia (this Otto accepts). Either tradition
might be true, but one is worth no more than the other. Compare
Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., and Otto, Corpus
Apol. Christ. IX. p. 333 sq.
3 This phrase is very significant, as showing the idea of Eusebius
that the persecutions did not proceed from the emperors themselves,
but were the result of the machinations of the enemies of the Chris-
tians.
* bp9oToij.Ca. Compare the use of opOofiovvra in 2 Tim. ii. 15.
^ The fragment begins toi) 66 (rwTJjpo? rjfj.uiv to. epya del trapriv.
The 6e seems to introduce a contrast, and allows us to assume with
some measure of assurance that an exposure of the pretended won-
ders of heathen magicians, who were numerous at that time, pie-
ceded this ocular proof of the genuineness of Christ's miracles.
'' Quadratus had evidently seen none of these persons himself;
he had simply heard of them through others. We have no record else-
where of the fact that any of those raised by Christ lived to a later age.
' Aristides of Athens, a contemporary of Quadratus, is called by
Eusebius in his Chronicle " a philosopher " {nostri dogmatis phi-
losophiis Athenicnsis) . Eusebius does not quote his work, perhaps
because he did not himself possess a copy, perhaps because it contained
no historical matter suitable to his purpose. He does not mention
him again (the Aristides, the friend of Africanus, of Bk. I. chap. 7
and of Bk. VI. chap. 31, lived a century later), and his Apologj- is
quoted by none of the Fathers, so far as is known. Vague and
worthless traditions of the Middle Ages still kept his name alive, as
in the case of Quadratus, but the Apology itself disappeared long ago,
until in 1878 a fragment of an Apology, bearing the name of "Aris-
tides, the Philosopher of Athens," was published by the Mechitarists
from a codex of the year 981. It is a fragment of an Armenian trans-
lation of the fifth century; and although its genuineness has been
denied, it is accepted by most critics, and seems to be an authentic
fragment from the age of Hadrian. See especially Harnack, i/>id.
p. 109 sq., and again in Herzog, 2d ed.. Supplement Vol. p. 675-
681; also Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 709.
' I.e. the emperor Hadrian.
- On Alexander, see above, chap, i, note 4.
176
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 4.
ten years. His successor was Xystus.^ About
the same time Primus, bishop of Alexandria,
died in the twelfth year of his episcopate,* and
was succeeded by Justus.^
CHAPTER V.
The Bishops of Jerusalem fro?n the Age of our
Saviour to the Period under Consideration.
1 The chronology of the bishops of Jerusa-
lem I have nowhere found preserved in
writing ; ^ for tradition says that they were
2 all short lived. But I have learned this
much from writings,^ that until the siege of
the Jews, which took place under Adrian,^ there
were fifteen bishops in succession there,'* all of
3 Known as Sixtus I. (Sixtus, or Sistiis, being the Latin form of
the name) in the list of Roman bishops. He was supposed to be the
author of a collection of religious and moral maxims, which were
widely read in the ancient Church and are mentioned by many of
the Fathers. His authorship was disputed by Jerome and others,
and tlie work from that time on was commonly assigned to a heathen
author, until recently some voices have again been heard in favor of
the authjrship of Bishop Sixtus (notably de Lagarde and Ewald).
See SchafTs Church Hist. II. p. 703 sq.
He is, according to Lipsius, the first Roman bishop whose dates
we have any means of ascertaining, and it may be assumed that he
was the first one that occupied an episcopal position in Rome; and
yet, even in his time, the monarchical episcopate can hardly have
been established in its full sense. In the next chapter we are told
that he held office ten years; and this figure, which is supported by
most of the ancient catalogues, may be accepted as approximately
correct. The date of his accession given here by Eusebius cannot,
however, be correct; for, as Lipsius has shown I^Chrcn. de roin.
Bischofe, p. 183 sq.) he must have died at least as early as 126 a.d.
(possibly as early as 124), so that his accession took pl.ace not later
than 116; that is, before the death of Trajan. Like most of the other
early Roman bishops he is celebrated as a martyr in the martyrolo-
gies, but the fact of his martyrdom rests upon a very late and worth-
less tradition.
* On Primus, see chap, i, note 4. Eusebius contradicts his own
dates here. For in chap, i he says that Alexander of Rome and
Primus of Alexandria became bishops at the same time; but accord-
ing to this chapter, Alexander died at the close of the tenth year of
his episcopate, and Primus in the twelfth year of his. Eusebius may
have used the word " about " advisedly, to cover considerable ground,
and may have grouped the two bishops together simply for conven-
ience' sake. No reliance is to be placed upon the dates in any
case.
^ We know nothing about Justus except that he ruled eleven
years, according to the next chapter. If Primus died in the twelfth
year of his episcopate, as Eusebius says in this chapter, and entered
upon his office in the twelfth year of Trajan, as he says in chapter i,
Justus must have become bishop about 120 a.d., in the third or
fourth year of Hadrian. It must be remembered, however, that all
of these dates are historically worthless.
t In his Chron. Eusebius also gives the names of these bishops
of Jerusalem, without assigning dates to more than two or three of
them. But in Nicephorus Callisti the dates are given. From what
source Nicephorus drew we do not know. He is, at any rate, too
late to be of any worth as an authority on such a subject. In fact,
these men were not regular monarchical bishops, holding office in
succession (see note 4), and hence Eusebius is quite excusable for
his ignorance in regard to their dates. See Ritschl's Entstchung
der aU-kath. Kirche, p. 246 sq.
2 Reuterdahl {De Fontibus Hist, ecclcs. Eiiscb., p. 55) conjec-
tures that these " writings " were found in the church of Jerusalem
itself, and compares a passage in the Dent. Evaug. III. 5: "The
first bishops that presided there [i.e. at Jerusalem] are said to have
been Jews, and their names are preserved by the inhabitants of the
country." H.ad Hegesippus or any other known author been the
source of his information, he would probably have mentioned his
name.
^ In 13s A.D. See below, chap. 7.
* From Hegesippus (see above, Bk. III. chap. 32) we learn that
Symeon, the successor of James, was martyred during Trajan's
reign. As was seen in note 6 of the chapter referred to, the martyr-
dom probably occurred early in that reign. Eusebius, in his Chron.,
refers the martyrdom and the accession of Justus to the tenth year
of Trajan (107 a.d.). This leaves thirteen bishops to be inserted
between 107 (or, if this date is not reliable, 98+) and 135 a.d., which
is, to say the least, very suspicious. The true explanation appears
to be that, after the death of Symeon, the last prominent relative of
whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent,
and to have received the knowledge of Christ in
purity, so that they were approved by those who
were able to judge of such matters, and were
deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their
whole church consisted then of believing He-
brews who continued from the days of the apos-
tles until the siege which took place at this time ;
in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled
against the Romans, were conquered after
severe battles. But since the bishops of 3
the circumcision ceased at this time, it is
proper to give here a list of their names from
the beginning. The first, then, was James, the
so-called brother of the Lord ; ^ the second, Sym-
eon;" the third, Justus ;^ the fourth, Zacchseus ;^
the fifth, Tobias ; the sixth, Benjamin ; the
seventh, John ; the eighth, Matthias ; the ninth,
Philip ; the tenth, Seneca ; ^ the eleventh, Justus ;
the twelfth, Levi ; the thirteenth, Ephres ; '° the
fourteenth, Joseph ; " and finally, the fif-
teenth, Judas. These are the bishops oi 4
Jerusalem that lived between the age of the
apostles and the time referred to, all of them
belonging to the circumcision.
In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian, 5
Xystus, having completed the tenth year of
Christ, the presbyters took the lead, and that they were afterward
made by tradition into successive monarchical bishops. Closs and
Gieseler suppose that there were bishops of a number of churches in
Palestine at the same time, whom tradition made successive bishops
of Jerusalem. But the fact is, that the episcopate is of Greek, not
of Jewish, origin, and in the strictly Jewish Christian churches of
Palestine no such person as a bishop can have existed. Only after
the church there came under the influence of the Gentile church,
and lost its prevailingly Jewish character, was it possible for a
bishop, in the general sense of the term, to exist there. The Jewish
Christians assumed for their church government the form of the
Jewish Sanhedrim, though while James and Symeon were alive, they
were naturally leaders (according to the common Oriental custom,
which exalted the relatives of the founder of a religion). The Jew-
ish character of the Jerusalem congregation was very marked until
the destruction of the city under Hadrian (note that all but two of
the fifteen bishops have Jewish names), after which all circumcised
Jews — Christians as well as unbelievers — were excluded, and a
heathen Christian congregation took its place (see the next chapter).
According to Stroth, followed by Closs, Stigloher, and Heinichen,
the church of Jerusalem remained in Pella after 70 a.d., and was
called the church of Jerusalem because it was made up of Christians
from Jerusalem. This is possible; but Eusebius evidently did not
understand it so (compare, too, his Dein. Evang. III. 5), and Epi-
phanius {de Mensa ct Pond. chap. 15) says expressly that, after the
destruction of the city by Titus, the church returned again to Jeru-
salem, and there is no good reason to doubt the report.
^ On James, see above, Bk. II. chap. i.
•" On Symeon, see above, Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4.
' Of Justus and the following named bishops we know nothing
more. Justus is called Judas by Epiphanius, Hter. LXVI. 20.
* Zacchaius is called Zacharias by Epiphanius. According to
Jerome's version of Eusebius' Chron. he became bishop in the fif-
teenth year of Trajan; according to the Armenian version, in the
twelfth year. Dates are given by the Chron. for this bishop and
for Seneca, but no confidence is to be reposed in the dates, nor in
those given by Epiphanius and Eutychius. The former, when he
gives dates at all, is hopelessly at sea. The latter gives exact dates
for every bishop, but quite without the support of ancient tradi-
tion.
'■' The name Seneca is Latin, the onl>^ Latin name in the list.
But there is nothing particularly surprising in a Jew's bearing a
Latin name. It was quite common even for native Jews to bear
both a Latin, or Greek, and a Hebrew name, and often the former
was used to the exclusion of the latter. The name therefore does
not disprove Seneca's Hebrew origin.
'" 'lC</)pj)?. Epiphanius calls him 'Ovai/>pt?. The Armenian ver-
sion of the Chron. calls him Ephrc-m; Jerome's version, Ephres.
Syncellus calls him 'Eit>paifj., which is the Hebrew form of the name.
" 'I(uo-)j(/>. He is called 'lui<ri<; by Epiphanius, and Joses by
Jerome.
IV. 6.]
SIEGE OF THE JEWS UNDER ADRIAN.
^n
his episcopatc,^^ was succeeded by Telesphorus/''
the seventh in succession from the apostles. In
the meantime, after the lapse of a year and some
months, Eumenes,''' tlie sixth in order, succeeded
to the leadership of the Alexandrian church, his
predecessor having held office eleven years.'''
CHAPTER VI.
Tlie Last Siege of the yews under Adrian.
1 As the rebellion of the Jews at this time
grew much more serious,' Rufus, governor
of Judea, after an auxiliary force had been sent
him by the emperor, using their madness as a
pretext, proceeded against them without mercy,
and destroyed indiscriminately thousands of
men and women and children, and in accord-
ance with the laws of war reduced their
country to a state of complete subjection.
2 The leader of the Jews at this time was a
man by the name of Barcocheba' (which
signifies a star), who possessed the character of
'' On Xystus, see chap. 4, note 3.
'3 Telesphorus was a martyr, according to Irenseus, III. 3. 3
(compare below, chap. 10, and Rk. V. chap. 6), and the tradition is
too old to be doubted. Eusebius here agrees with Jerome's version
of the Ch>-o>i. in putting the date of Telesphorus' accession in the
year 128 a.d., but the Armenian version puts it in 124; and Lipsius,
with whom Overbeck agrees, puts it between 124 and 126. Since
he held office eleven years (according to Eusebius, chap. 10, below,
and other ancient catalogues), he must have died, according to
Lipsius and Overbeck, between 135 and 137 a.d. (the latter being
probably the correct date), and not in the first year of Antoninus
Pius (138 .A..D.), as Eusebius states in chap. 10, below. Tradition
says that he fought against Marcion and Valentinus (which is quite
possible), and that he was very strict in regard to fasts, sharpening
them and increasing their number, which may or may not be true.
1* We know nothing more about Eumenes. He is said in chap.
II to have held office thirteen years, and this brings the date of his
death into agreement with the date given by the Armenian version
of the Chroii., which differs by two years from the date given by
Jerome.
'^ His predecessor was Justus. See the previous chapter.
^ The rebellions of the Jews which had broken out in Cyrene
and elsewhere during the reign of Trajan only increased the cruelty
of the Romans toward them, and in Palestine, as well as elsewhere
in the East, their position was growing constantly worse. Already
during the reign of Trajan Palestine itself was the scene of many
minor disturbances and of much bitter persecution. Hadrian re-
garded them as a troublesome people, and showed in the beginning
of his reign that he was not very favorably disposed toward them.
Indeed, it seems that he even went so far as to determine to build
upon the site of Jerusalem a purely heathen city. It was at about
this time, when all the Jews were longing for the Messiah, that a
man appeared (his original name we do not know, but his coins
make it probable that it was Simon), claiming to be the Messiah,
and promising to free the Jews from the Roman yoke. He took the
name Bar-Cochba, " Son of a star," and was enthusiastically sup-
ported by Rabbi Akiba and other leading men among the Jews, who
believed him to be the promised Messiah. He soon gathered a large
force, and war finally broke out between him and Rufus, the gov-
ernor of Judea, about the year 132. Rufus was not strong enough
to put down the rebellion, and Julius Severus, Hadrian's greatest
general, was therefore summoned from Britain with a strong force.
Bar-Cochba and his followers shut themselves up in Bethar, a strong
fortification, and after a long siege the place was taken in 135 a.d.,
in the fourth year of the war, and Bar-Cochba was put to death.
The Romans took severe revenge upon the Jews. Hadrian built
upon the site of Jerusalem a new city, which he named ./Elia Capi-
tolina, and upon the site of the temple a new temple to the Capitoline
Jupiter, and passed a law that no Jew should henceforth enter the
place. Under Bar-Cochba the Christians, who refused to join him
in his rebellion, were very cruelly treated (cf. Justin Martyr, Af>ol.
I. 31, quoted in chap. 8, below). Upon this last war of the Jews,
see Dion Cassius, LXIX. 12-14, and compare Jost's Gesch. der
Israeliten, III. p. 227 sq., and Nlunter's y'lidischer Krieg.
2 Heb. t^SDID "13, Bar-Cochba, which signifies " Son of a star"
(cf. Num. xxiv. 17). After his defeat the Jews gave him the name
i{3T3 "iDi Bar-Coziba, which means " Son of a lie."
VOL. I. N
a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless, re-
lying upon his name, boasted to them, as if they
were slaves, that he possessed wonderful powers ;
and he pretended that he was a star that had
come down to them out of heaven to bring them
light in the midst of their misfortunes.
The war raged most fiercely in the eigh- 3
teenth year of Adrian,^ at the city of Bith-
ara,* which was a very secure fortress, situated
not far from Jerusalem. When the siege had
lasted a long time, and the rebels had been
driven to the last extremity by hunger and thirst,
and the instigator of the rebellion had suffered
his just punishment, the whole nation was pro-
hibited from this time on by a decree, and by
the commands of Adrian, from ever going up to
the country about Jerusalem. For the emperor
gave orders that they should not even see from
a distance the land of their fathers. Such
is the account of Aristo of Pella.^ And 4
thus, when the city had been emptied of
the Jewish nation and had suffered the total
destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was col-
onized by a different race, and the Roman city
which subsequently arose changed its name and
was called ^lia, in honor of the emperor ^lius
Adrian. And as the church there was now com-
2 I.e. Aug. 134 to Aug. 135.
* BiOdripa, Rufinus Bcthara. The exact situation of this place
cannot be determined, although various localities have been sug-
gested by travelers (see Robinson's BiH. Researches, III. p. 267
sqq.). We may conclude at any rate that it was, as Eusebius says, a
strongly fortified place, and that it was situated somewhere in Judea.
^ Whether the whole of the previous account, or only the close
of it, was taken by Eusebius from Aristo of Pella, we do not know.
Of Aristo of Pella himself we know very little. Eusebius is the first
writer to mention him, and he and Maximus Confessor (in his notes
on the work De mystica Tlieol. cap. I. p. 17, ed. Corderii) are the
only ones to give us any information about him (for the notices in
Moses Chorenensis and in the Ckron. Paschale — the only other
places in which Aristo is mentioned — are entirely unreliable).
Maximus informs us that Aristo was the author of a Dialogue of
Papiscns and Jason, a work mentioned by many of the Fathers,
but connected by none of them with Aristo. The dialogue, accord-
ing to Maximus, was known to Clement of Alexandria, and there-
fore must have been written as early as, or very soon after, the mid-
dle of the second century ; and the fact that it recorded a dialogue
between a Hebrew Christian and an Alexandrian Jew (as we learn
from the epistle of Celsus, De Judaica Incredulitatc, printed with
the works of Cyprian, in Hartel's edition. III. p. 1 19-132) would
lead us to expect an early date for the work. There can be found
no good reason for doubting the accuracy of Maximus' statement;
and if it be accepted, we must conclude that the writer whom Euse-
bius mentions here was the author of the dialogue referred to. If
this be so, it is quite possible that it was from this dialogue that
Eusebius drew the account which he here ascribes to Aristo; for
such an account might well find a place in a dialogue between two
Hebrews. It is possible, of course, that Aristo wrote some other
work in which he discussed this subject; but if it had been an his-
torical work, we should expect Eusebius, according to his custom,
to give its title. Harnack is quite correct in assuming that Euse-
bius' silence in regard to the work itself is significant. Doiibtless
the work did not please him, and hence he neither mentions it, nor
gives an account of its author. This is just what we should expect
Eusebius' attitude to be toward such a Jewish Christian work (and
at the same time, such a ' simple' work, as Origen calls it in Contra
Ccls. IV. 52) as we know the dialogue to have been. We are, of
course, left largely to conjecture in this matter: but the above con-
clusions seem at least probable. Compare Harnack's Ueberliefe-
rung der griech. ApoL, p. 115 sq.; and for a discussion of the
nature of the dialogue (which is no longer ext.ant), see 'bX'i Alter-
catio Simonis Juda;! et Theophili Christiani {Texte nnd Un-
tcrsuchnngcn, I. 3), p. 115 sq. (Harnack looks upon this Latm
altercatio as, in part at least, a free reproduction of the lost dia-
logue). See, also, the writer's Dialogue between a Christiaii and
a Jew ('Ai'Ti^oAij na7rio-/coii /cat ^iKuivoi: 'lovSaiiov irpbs novaxov
TLVO.J p. 'i'X*
The town of Pella lay east of the Jordan, in Perea. See Bk.
III. chap. 5, note 10, above.
178
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 6.
posed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the
government of it after the bishops of the circum-
cision was Marcus."
CHAPTER VII.
The Perso7is that becmne at that Time Leaders
of Knowledge falsely so-called}
1 As the churches throughout the world
were now shining like the most brilliant
stars, and faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus
Christ was flourishing among the whole human
race," the demon who hates everything that is
good, and is always hostile to the trutli, and
most bitterly opposed to the salvation of man,
turned all his arts against the Church.^ In the
beginning he armed himself against it with
2 external persecutions. But now, being shut
off from the use of such means,* he devised
all sorts of plans, and employed other methods
in his conflict with the Church, using base and
deceitful men as instruments for the ruin of
souls and as ministers of destruction. Instigated
by him, impostors and deceivers, assuming the
name of our religion, brought to the depths of
ruin such of the believers as they could win over,
and at the same time, by means of the deeds
which they practiced, turned away from the path
which leads to the word of salvation those
3 who were ignorant of the faith. Accord-
ingly there proceeded from that Menander,
whom we have already mentioned as the succes-
sor of Simon,^ a certain serpent-like power,
double-tongued and two-headed, which pro-
duced the leaders of two different heresies, Satur-
ninus, an Antiochian by birth,'' and Basilides, an
" Of this Marcus we know nothing more. Upon the Gentile
bishops of Jerusalem, see Bk. V. chap. 12.
1 ijl/euStoi'u/aou yi-iocreajg. Compare i Tim. vi. 20.
2 This statement is of course an exaggeration. See above, Bk.
II. chap. 3, note i.
3 These two paragraphs furnish an excellent illustration of Euse-
bius' dualistic and transcendental conception of history. In his
opinion, heresy was not a natural growth from within, but an exter-
nal evil brought upon the Church by the devil, when he could
no longer persecute. According to this conception the Church
conquers this external enemy, heresy, and then goes on as before,
unaffected by it. In agreement with this is his conception of here-
tics themselves, whom he, in common with most other Christians
of that age, considered without exception wicked and abandoned
characters.
* Eusebius' belief that persecution had ceased at the time of
Hadrian is .in illusion (see below, chap. 8, note 14) which falls in
with his general conceptions upon this subject — conceptions which
ruled among Christian writers until the end of the fourth century.
c See Bk. III. chap. 26.
" Saturninus is called Saturnilus by Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and
Theodoret, and his followers Saturnilians by Hegesippus, quoted
in chap. 22, below. Irena;us {Adv. Haer. I. 24) and Hippolytus
(VII. 16) give accounts of the man and his doctrine which are evi-
dently taken from the same source, prob.-\bly the lost Syntaj^iiia of
Justin Martyr. Neither of them seems to have had any independent
information, nor do any other writers know more about hnn than
w.as contained in that original source. Irenscus was possibly Euse-
bius' sole authority, although Irenaeus assigns Saturninus only to
Syria, while Eusebius makes him a native of Antioch. Hippolytus
says that he " spent his time in Antioch of Syria," which may have
been the statement of the original, or may have been a mere deduc-
tion from a more general statement such as lrena:us gives. In the
same way Eusebius may have needed no authority for his still more
exact statement.
.'\lexandrian.'^ The former of these established
schools of godless heresy in Syria, the lat-
ter in Alexandria. Iren?eus states'* that the 4
false teaching of Saturninus agreed in most
respects with that of Menander, but that Basili-
des, under the pretext of unspeakable mysteries,
invented monstrous fables, and carried the fic-
tions of his impious heresy (juite beyond
bounds. But as there were at that time a 5
great many members of the Churcli" who
were fighting for the truth and defending apos-
tolic and ecclesiastical doctrine with uncommon
eloquence, so there were some also that fur-
nished posterity through tlieir writings with
means of defense against the heresies to
which we have referred.^" Of these there G
has come down to us a most powerful refu-
tation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor,'^ one of
" Basilides was one of the greatest and most famous of the
Gnostics. Irenajus (I. 24) and the early Comf<C7idinm of Hip-
polytus (now lost, but used together with Irenaius' work by Epipha-
nius in his treatise against heresies) described a form of Basili-
dianism which was not the original, but a later corruption of the
system. On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria surely, and
Hippolytus, in the fuller account in his Philosoph. (VII. 2 sq.),
probably drew their knowledge of the system directly from Basil-
ides' own work, the Excgetica, and hence represent the form of
doctrine taught by Basilides himself, — a form differing greatly from
the later corruptions of it which IrenEeus discusses. This system
was very profound, and bore in many respects a lofty character.
Basilides had apparently few followers (his son Isidore is the only
prominent one known to us) ; and though his system created a great
impression at the start, — so much so that his name always remained
one of the most famous of Gnostic names, — it had little vitality,
and soon died out or was corrupted beyond recognition. He was
mentioned of course in all the general works against heresies written
by the Fathers, but no one seems to have composed an especial ref-
utation of his system except Agrippa Castor, to whom Eusebius
refers. Irenseus informs us that he taught at Alexandria, Hippo-
lytus (VII. 15) mentions simply Egypt, while Epiphanius (XXI. i)
names various Egyptian cities in which he labored, but it is evident
that he is only enumerating places in which there were Basilidians
in his time. It is not certain whether he is to be identified with the
Basilides who is mentioned in the Acts of Arcliela^cs as preaching
in Persia. For an excellent account of Basilides and his system,
see the article by Hort in the Diet. 0/ Christ. Bi'og: ; and in addi-
tion to the works of Neander, Baur, and Lipsius on Gnosticism in
general, see especially Uhlhorn's Das Basilidianische System,
Gottingen, 1855.
* See Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. I. 24.
^ iKKKy\<ji(x<jTiK{tiV ai'Spujv.
1" The only one of these — " that furnished posterity with means
of defense against heresies" — whom Eusebius mentions is Agrippa
Castor, and it is evident that he knew of no others. Moreover, it is
more than doubtful whether Agrippa Castor belongeil to that time.
We do not know when he wrote, but it is hardly possible that the
Church had at that period any one capable of answering such a work
as the Commentary of Basilides, or any one who would wish to if he
could. The activity of the Church was at this early period devoted
chiefly if not wholly to the production of apologies for the defense
of the Church against the attacks of enemies from the outside, and
to the composition of apocalypses. Eusebius in the next chapter
mentions Hegesippus as another of these " writers of the time."
But the passage which he quotes to prove that Hegesippus wrote
then only proves that the events mentioned took place during his
lifetime, and not necessarily within forty or fifty years of the time
at which he was writing. The fact is, that Hegesippus really wrote
about r75 a.d. (later therefore than Justin Martyr), and in chap.
21 of this book Eusebius restores him to his proper chronological
place. The general statement made here by Eusebius in regard to
the writers against heresy during the reign of Hadrian rest uixin his
preconceived idea of what must have been the case. If the devil
raised up enemies against the truth, the Church must certainly have
had at the same time defenders to meet them. It is a simple exam-
ple of well-meaning subjective reconstruction. He had the work
of Agrippa Castor before bim, and undoubtedly believed that he lived
at the time stated (which indeed we cannot absolutely deny), and
believed, moreover, that other .similar writers, whose names he did
not know, lived at the same time.
'1 Of Agrippa Castor we know only what Eusebius tells us here.
Jerome (dr rvV. ?'//. chap. 21) adds nothing new, and Thcodoret's
statement (d'ati. I. 4), that Agrippa wrote against Basilides' son,
Isidore, as well as against Basilides hiiUKclf, is simply ai. i-xiiansion
of Eusebius' account, and does not inijily the exisl<.ii(X r f .m, i!icr
IV. 7.]
BASILIDES AND CARPOCRATES.
179
the most renowned writers of that day, which
shows the terrible imposture of the man.
7 While exposing his mysteries he says that
Basilides wrote twenty-four books upon the
Gospel,'-' and that he invented j)rophets for him-
self named Barcabbas and Barcoph," and others
that had no existence, and that he gave them
barbarous names in order to amaze those who
marvel at such things ; that he taught also that
the eating of meat offered to idols and the un-
guarded renunciation of the faith in times of
persecution were matters of indifference ; ^* and
that he enjoined upon his followers, like
8 Pythagoras, a silence of five years.'^ Other
similar things the above-mentioned writer
has recorded concerning Basilides, and has
9 ably exposed the error of his heresy. Ire-
work. Agrippa's production, of which we do not know even the
title, has entirely disappeared.
1- eU TO euayYtAioi' ^i/3Ai'a. Clement of Alexandria {Sirovt. IV.
12) quotes from the twenty-third hook of the Excgetica of Basilides.
Origen {Horn, hi Luc. I.) says that Basilides " had even the audac-
ity to write a Gospel according to Basilides" and this remark is
repeated by Ambrose {E.r/>. in Luc. I. i). and seems to be Jerome's
authority for the enumeration of a Gosf>cl 0/ Basilides among the
Apocryphal Gospels in his Comment in Matt., prcef. We know
nothing more about this Gospel, and it is quite possible that Origen
mistook the Exegetica for a Gospel. We do not know upon what
Gospels Basilides wrote his Commentary (or Exegeticd), but it is
hardly probable that he would have expounded his own Gospel even
if such a work existed. The passage from the Exegctica which
Clement quotes looks to me like a part of an exposition of John ix.
(although Lipsius, in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. II. 715, suggests
Luke xxi. 12). Meanwhile, in the Acta Archelai, chap. 55 (see
Gallandii Bibl. PP. III. 608), is a quotation from " the thirteenth
book of the treatises {traetatnum') of Basilides," which is an expo-
sition of the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi.). If this is
the same work, it woidd seem that the Excgetica must have included
at least Luke and John, possibly Matthew also, for we know that
the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were all used by the Basili-
dians. The respective positions in the work of the expositions of
the passages from Luke and John (the former in the thirteenth, the
latter in the twenty-third, book) would seem, however, to exclude
Matthew, if the books were at all of equal length. If Lipsius were
correct in regarding the latter passage as an exposition of Luke xxi.
12, there would be no evidence that the Commentary covered more
than a single Gospel.
" According to Epiphanius, some of the Ophites appealed to a
certain prophet called Barcabbas. What his connection was with
the one mentioned here we do not know. Clement of Alexandria
{Strom. VI. 6) speaks of the Expositions of the Prophet Parchor
by Isidore, the son of Basilides. This may be another of Basilides'
prophets, but is more probably identical with the oft-mentioned Bar-
coph. In the second book of these Expositions, as quoted by
Clement, occurs a reference to the prophecy of Cham or Ham. Rien-
stra {De Euseb. Hist. Eccles. p. 29) thinks that Agrippa Castor
was mistaken in saying that Basilides mentioned these prophets; but
there seems to be no good reason to deny the accuracy of the re-
port, even though we know nothing more about the prophets men-
tioned. Hort {Diet, of Christ. Biog., article Barcabbas) thinks it
likely that the prophecies current among the various Gnostic bodies
belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian literature.
1* This was not a doctrine of Basilides himself, but of his fol-
lowers (compare the accounts of Irenaeus and Hippolytus). If
Agrippa Castor represented Basilides' position thus, as Eusebius
says he did (though Eusebius may be only following Irenaeus), it is
an evidence that he did not live at the early date to which Eusebius
assigns him, and this goes to confirm the view stated above, in note
10. Basilides himself taught at least a moderate asceticism, while
his followers went off into crude dualism and moral license (see the
excellent account of Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. 466 sq.).
1" Exactly what is meant by this " five years of silence " is un-
certain. Whether it denoted unquestioning and silent obedience of
all commands, as it meant in the case of the Pythagoreans (if, in-
deed, the traditions in regard to the latter have any basis in fact), or
strict secrecy as to the doctrines taught, cannot be decided. The
report in regard to the Basilidians, in so far as it has any truth,
probably arose on the ground of some such prohibition, which may
have been made by some follower of Basilides, if not by the latter
himself. A bond of secrecy woidd lend an air of mystery to the
school, which would accord well with the character of its later teach-
ings. But we cannot make Basilides responsible for such proceed-
ings. Agrippa Castor, as reproduced here by Eusebius, is our sole
authority for the enjoinment of silence by Basilides.
naeus also writes '" that Carpocrates was a con-
temporary of these men, and that he was the
father of another heresy, called the heresy of
the Gnostics,'^ who did not wish to transmit any
longer the magic arts of Simon, as that one "* had
done, in secret, but openly.*'-' For they boasted
— as of something great — of love potions that
were carefully prepared by them, and of certain
demons that sent them dreams and lent them
their protection, and of other similar agencies ;
and in accordance with these things they taught
that it was necessary for those who wished to
enter fully into their mysteries, or rather into
their abominations, to practice all the worst
kinds of wickedness, on the ground that they
could escape the cosmic powers, as they called
them, in no other way than by discharging their
"J See Irenaeits, Adv. Hepr. I. 25.
1' The date of the rise of Gnosticism cannot be fixed. Indeed,
all the requisite conditions existed from the beginning. It was the
"acute Verweltlichung " (as Harnack calls it) of Christianity, the
development of it in connection with the various ethnic philosojihies,
and it began as soon as Christianity came in contact with the Greek
mind. At first it was not heretical, simply because there were no
standards by which to try it. There was only the preaching of the
Christians; the canon was not yet formed; episcopacy was not yet
established; both arose as safeguards against heresy. It was in
the time of Hadrian, perhaps, that these speculations began to be
regarded as heresies, because they contradicted certain fundamental
truths to which the Christians felt that they must cling, such as the
unity of God, his graciousness, his goodness, etc. ; and therefore
the Christians dated Gnosticism from that time. Gnosticism was
ostensibly conquered, but victory was achieved only as the Church
itself became in a certain sense Gnostic. It followed the course of
Gnosticism a century later; that is, it wrote commentaries, .systems
of doctrine, &c., philosophizing about religious things (cf. Harnack's
Doginengeschic hte , I. p. 162 sq.). It must be remembered in read-
ing the Fathers' accounts of Gnosticism that they took minor and
unimportant details and magnified them, and treated them as the
essentials of the system or systems. In this way far greater variety
appears to have existed in Gnosticism than was the case. The es-
sential principles were largely the same throughout; the diflerences
were chiefly in regard to details. It is this conduct on the part of
the Fathers that gives us such a distorted and often ridiculous view
of Gnosticism.
The Carpocratians are the first of whom Irenaeus expressly says
that they called themselves Gnostics {adv. Hter. I. 25, 6), while
Hippolytus first speaks of the name as adopted by the Naasseni
(V. i). The Carpocratians are mentioned by Hegesippus (quoted
below in chap. 22). The system was more exclusively Greek in its
character than any other of the Gnostic systems. The immoral-
ity of the sect was proverbial; Tertullian {de Anima, c. 35) calls
Carpocrates a magician and a fornicator. He taught the superiority
of man over the powers of the world, the moral indifference of things
in themselves, and hence, whether he himself was immoral or not,
his followers carried out his principles to the extreme, and believed
that the true Gnostic might and even must have experience of every-
thing, and therefore should practice all sorts of immoralities.
Eusebius is probably right in assigning Carpocrates to this
period. The relation of his system to those of Saturninus and
Basilides seems to imply that he followed them, but at no great
interval. Other sources for a knowledge of Carpocrates and his
sect are Irenaeus (I. 25 and II. 31-33), Clement of Alexandria
{Strom. HI. 2), Hippolytus {Phil. VII. 20), Tertullian {de Aninia,
23> 35) > Pseudo-Tertullian {adv. omiies Hier. 3), Epiphanius
{Hirr. 27), and Philaster (c. 35). Of these only Irenaeus, Clem-
ent of Alexandria, and the earlier treatise of Hippolytus (which lies
at the base of Pseudo-Tertullian and Philaster) are independent;
and probably, b.ack of Irenaus, lies Justin Martyr's lost Syntagma;
though it is very likely that Irenaeus knew the sect personally, and
made additions of his own. Compare Harnack's Quelletikritik des
Gnosticismus, p. 41 sq.
1* eifcii-o?, referring back to Basilides.
'^ Where Eusebius secured the information that the Carpocra-
tians made the magic rites of Simon public, instead of keeping them
secret, as Basilides had done, I cannot tell. None of our existing
sources mentions this fact, and whether Eusebius took it from some
lost source, or whether it is simply a deduction of his own, I am not
certain. In other respects his account agrees closely with that of
Irenasus. It is possible that he had seen the lost work of Hippoly-
tus (see below, VI. 22, note y), and from that had picked up this
item which he states as a fact. But the omission of it in Philaster,
Pseudo-Tertullian, and Epiphanius are against this supposition.
Justin's Syntagma Eusebius probably never saw (see below, chap.
II, note 31).
N 2
I So
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 7.
obligations to them all by infamous con-
10 duct. Thus it came to pass that the malig-
nant demon, making use of these ministers,
on the one hand enslaved those that were so
pitiably led astray by them to their own destruc-
tion, while on the other hand he furnished to
the unbelieving heathen abundant opportunities
for slandering the divine word, inasmuch as the
reputation of these men brought infamy
11 upon the whole race of Christians. In this
way, therefore, it came to pass that there
was spread abroad in regard to us among the
unbelievers of that age, the infamous and most
absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful
commerce with mothers and sisters, and
12 enjoyed impious feasts.^ He did not, how-
ever, long succeed in these artifices, as the
truth established itself and in time shone
13 with great brilliancy. For the machinations
of its enemies were refuted by its power
and speedily vanished. One new heresy arose
after another, and the former ones always passed
away, and now at one time, now at another, now
in one way, now in other ways, were lost in ideas
of various kinds and various forms. But the
splendor of the catholic and only true Church,
which is always the same, grew in magnitude
and power, and reflected its piety and simpli-
city and freedom, and the modesty and purity of
its inspired life and philosophy to every na-
14 tion both of Greeks and of Barbarians. At the
same time the slanderous accusations which
had been brought against the whole Church-^
20 The chief accusations urged against the early Christians by
their antagonists were atheism, cannibalism, and incest. These
charges were made very early. Justin Martyr (^Apol. I. 26) men-
tions them, and Pliny in his epistle to Trajan speaks of the innocent
meals of the Christians, implying that they had been accused of
immorality in connection with them. (Compare, also, Tertullian's
Apol. 7, 8, and Ad N^ationes, 7.) In fact, suspicions arose among
the heathen as soon as their love feasts became secret. The perse-
cution in Lyons is to be explained only by the belief of the officers
that these and similar accusations were true. The Christians com-
monly denied all such charges in toto, and supported their denial by
urging the absurdity of such conduct; but sometimes, as in the
present case, they endeavored to exonerate themselves by attrib-
uting the crimes with which they were charged to heretics. This
course, however, helped them little with the heathen, as the latter
did not distinguish between the various parties of Christians, but
treated them all as one class. The statement of Eusebius in the
present case is noteworthy. He thinks that the crimes were really
committed by heretics, and occa.sioned the accusations of the heathen,
and he thus admits that the charges were founded upon fact. In
this case he acts toward the heretics in the same way that the hea-
then acted toward the Christians as a whole. This method of exon-
erating themselves appears as early as Justin Martyr Ccompare his
Apol. I. 26). Irena;us also (I. 25, 3), whom Eusebius substantially
follows in this passage, and Philaster (c. 57), pursue the same
course.
21 Eusebius is correct in his statement that such accusations were
no longer made in his day. The Church had, in fact, lived them
down completely. It is noticeable that in the elaborate work of
Celsus against the Christians, no such charges are found. From
Origen {Contra Cels. VI. 27), however, we learn that there were
still in his time some who believed these reports about the Chris-
tians, though they were no longer made the basis of serious attacks.
Whether Eusebius' synchronization of the cessation of these slan-
derous stories with the cessation of the heresies of which he has
been talking, is correct, is not so certain, as we know neither exactly
when these heresies ran out, nor precisely the time at which the
accusations ceased. At any rate, we cannot fully agree with Eu.se-
bius' explanation of the matter. The two things were hardly con-
nected as direct cause .and effect, though it cannot be denied that
the actual immoralities of some of these antinomian sects may have
had some effect in confirming these tales, and hence that their ex-
also vanished, and there remained our teach-
ing alone, which has prevailed over all, and
which is acknowledged to be superior to all in
dignity and temperance, and in divine and phil-
osophical doctrines. So that none of them now
ventures to affix a base calumny upon our faith,
or any such slander as our ancient enemies
formerly delighted to utter. Nevertheless, 15
in those times the truth again called forth
many champions who fought in its defense against
the godless heresies, refuting them not only with
oral, but also with written arguments."
CHAPTER VIII.
Ecclesiastical Writers.
Among these Hegesippus was well 1
known.^ We have already quoted his
words a number of times," relating events which
happened in the time of the apostles ac-
cording to his account. He records in five 2
books the true tradition of apostolic doc-
trine in a most simple style, and he indicates
the time in which he flourished when he writes
as follows concerning those that first set up
idols : " To whom they erected cenotaphs and
temples, as is done to the present day. Among
whom is also Antinoiis,' a slave of the Emperor
Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the
Antinoian games, which were instituted in our
day. For he [i.e. Adrian] also founded a city
named after Antinoiis,'* and appointed proph-
ets."
At the same time also Justin, a genuine lover 3
of the true philosophy, was still continuing
to busy himself with Greek literature.^ He indi-
cates this time in the Apology which he addressed
to Antonine, where he writes as follows : " " We
do not think it out of place to mention here
Antinoiis also, who lived in our day, and whom all
tinction may have had some tendency to hasten the obliteration of
the vile reports.
-- See above, note lo.
1 On the life and writings of Hegesippus, see below, chap. 22,
note I. Eusebius in this passage puts his literary activity too early
(see above, chap. 7, note 10). Jerome follows Eusebius' chronologi-
cal arrangement in his de vir ill., giving an account of Hegcsinjus
in chap. 22, between his accounts of Agrippa Castor and Justin
Martyr.
2 Already quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 32.
•■^ Antinoiis, a native of Bithynia, was a beautiful page of the
Emperor H.adrian, and the object of his extravagant affections. He
was probably drowned in the Nile, in 130 a.d. After his death he
was raised to the rank of the gods, and temples were built for his
worship in many parts of the empire, especially in F.gj'pt. In Athens
too games were instituted in his honor, and games were also cele-
brated every fifth year at Mantinea, in Arcadia, according to Vale-
sius, who cites Pausanias as his authority.
■• Hadrian rebuilt the city of Besa in the Thebais, in whose neigh-
borhood Antinoiis was drowned, and called it Antinoopolis.
'' On Justin Martyr, see chap. 16, below. Wc do not know the
date of his conversion, but as it did not take place until mature years,
it is highly probable that he was still a heathen during the greater
part of Hadrian's reign. There is no reason, however, to suppo.se
that Eusebius is speaking here with more than approximate accu-
racy. He may not have known any better than we the exact time
of Justin's conversion.
" Justin, Apol. I. 29.
IV. 8.]
ADRIAN'S RESCRIPT.
i8i
were driven by fear to worship as a god, although
they knew who he was and whence he came."
4 The same writer, speaking of the Jewish war
which took pkice at that time, adds the
following : ^ " For in the late Jewish war Barco-
cheba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, com-
manded that Christians alone "^ should be visited
with terrible punishments unless they would
5 deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ." And in
the same work he shows that his conversion
from Greek philosophy to Christianity'-* was not
without reason, but that it was the result of
deliberation on his part. His words are as fol-
lows : ^" " For I myself, while I was delighted
with the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Chris-
tians slandered, and saw that they were afraid
neither of death nor of anything else ordinarily
looked upon as terrible, concluded that it was
impossible that they could be living in wicked-
ness and pleasure. For what pleasure- loving or
intemperate man, or what man that counts it
good to feast on human flesh, could welcome
death that he might be deprived of his enjoy-
ments, and would not rather strive to continue
permanently his present Ufe, and to escape the
notice of the rulers, instead of giving him-
6 self up to be put to death?" The same
writer, moreover, relates that Adrian having
received from Serennius Granianus," a most dis-
tinguished governor, a letter ^^ in behalf of the
Christians, in which he stated that it was not just
to slay the Christians without a regular accusa-
tion and trial, merely for the sake of gratifying
the outcries of the populace, sent a rescript ^^ to
Minucius Fundanus,^^ proconsul of Asia, com-
' Justin, Apol. I. 31.
8 Xfit.<rT.<)-vov<i juovous. " This ' alone ' is, as Miinter remarks,
not to be understood as implying that Barcocheba did not treat the
Greeks and Romans also with cruelty, but that he persecuted the
Christians especially, from religious hate, if he could not compel
them to apostatize. Moreover, he handled the Christians so roughly
because of their hesitation to take part in the rebellion " (Closs) .
"> Justin, Apol. II. 12. Eusebius here quotes from what is now
known as the Second Apology of Justin, but identifies it with the
first, from which he has quoted just above. This implies that the
two as he knew them formed but one work, and this is confirmed by
his quotations in chaps. 16 and 17, below. For a discussion of this
matter, see chap. 18, note 3.
11 The best MSS. of Eusebius write the name Sepei'i'tos rpai-tavos,
but one MS., supported by Syncellus, writes the first word SepeVtos.^
Rufinus writes "Serenius"; Jerome, in his version of Eusebius'
Chronicle, followed by Orosius (VII. 13), writes "Serenius Gra-
nius," and this, according to Kortholdt (quoted by Heinichen), is
shown by an inscription to have been the correct form (see Hein-
ichen's edition, in loco). We know no more of this man, except
that he was Minucius Fundanus' predecessor as proconsul of Asia,
as we learn from the opening sentence of the rescript quoted in the
ne.\t chapter.
'2 -ypaM-naTa. The plural is often used like the Latin litem to
denote a single epistle, and we learn from the opening sentence of
the rescript itself (if the Greek of Eusebius is to be relied on) that
Hadrian replies, not to a number of letters, but to a single one, —
an en-io-ToA^, as Eusebius calls it.
'•i ci'TLypdi/zat.
'^ This Minucius Fundanus is the same person that is addressed
by Pliny, Ep. I. 9 (see Mommsen's note in Keil's ed. of Pliny's
epistles, p. 419). He is mentioned also by Melito (Eusebius, IV. 26)
as proconsid of Asia, and it is there said that Hadrian wrote to him
concerning the Christians. The authenticity of this rescript is a dis-
puted point. Keim ( Theol. yahrbiicher, 1856, p. 387 sqq.) was the
first to dispute its genuineness. He has been followed by many
scholars, especially Overbeck, who gives a very keen discussion of
manding him to condemn no one without an
indictment and a well-grounded accusation.
And he gives a copy of the epistle, preserv- 7
ing the original Latin in which it was writ-
ten,^^ and prefacing it with the following words : '"
" Although from the epistle of the greatest and
most illustrious Emperor Adrian, your father, we
have good ground to demand that you order
judgment to be given as we have desired, yet we
have asked this not because it was ordered by
Adrian, but rather because we know that what
we ask is just. And we have subjoined the copy
of Adrian's epistle that you may know that we are
the various edicts of the early emperors relating to the Christians in
his Stiidten ziir Gesch. der alien Kirche, I. p. 93 sqq. The genu-
ineness of the edict, however, has been defended against Kcim's
attack by Wieseler, Renan, Lightfoot, and others. The whole ques-
tion hinges upon the interpretation of the rescript. According to
Gieseler, Neander, and some others, it is aimed only against tumultu-
ous proceedings, and, far from departing from the principle laid down
by Trajan, is an attempt to return to that principle and to substitute
orderly judicial processes for popular attacks. If this be the sense
of the edict, there is no reason to doubt its genuineness, but the next
to the last sentence certainly cannot be interpreted in that way: " if
any one therefore brings an accusation, and shows that they have
done something contrary to the laws (ti n-apa toO? I'op.ous) deter-
mine thus according to the heinoitsness of the crime" (xara. t>)c
BHvaij-Lv Tou dju,apT>j/iaTo?). These last words are very significant.
They certainly imply various crimes of which the prisoners are sup-
posed to be accused. According to the heinousness of these crimes
the punishment is to be regulated. In other words, the trial of the
Christians was to be for the purpose of ascertaining whether they
were guilty of moral or political crimes, not whether they merely
professed Christianity; that is, the profession of Christianity, ac-
cording to this rescript, is not treated as a crime in and of itself.
If the edict then be genuine, Hadrian reversed completely Tra-
jan's principle of procedure which was to punish the profession of
Christianity in and of itself as a crime. But in the time of Anto-
ninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius the rescript of Trajan is seen still to
be in full force. For this and other reasons presented by Keim and
Overbeck, I am constrained to class this edict with those of Antoni-
nus Pius and Marcus Aurelius as a forgery. It can hardly have
been composed while Hadrian was still alive, but must have been
forged before Justin wrote his Apology, for he gives it as a genuine
edict, i.e. it must belong to the early part of the reign of Antoninus
Pius.
The illusion under which the early Christian writers labored in re-
gard to the relations of the emperors to Christianity is very remarka-
ble. Both Melito and Tertullian state that no emperor had persecuted
the Christians except Nero and Domitian. Christian writers through-
out the second century talk in fact as if the mode of treatment which
they were receiving was something new and strange, and in oppo-
sition to the better treatment which previous emperors had accorded
the Christians. In doing this, they ignore entirely the actual edicts
of the emperors, all of which are now lost, and notice only forged
edicts which are favorable to the Christians; when and by whom
they were forged we do not know. Thus Tertullian, in addressing
Septimius Severus, speaks of the favors which his predecessors had
granted the Christians and contrasts their conduct with his; Melito
addresses Marcus Aurelius in the same way, and so Justin addresses
Antoninus Pius. This method probably arose from a misunder-
standing of the original edict of Trajan (cf. Bk. III. chap. 33, note 6),
which they all considered favorable, and therefore presupposed a
friendly attitude on the part of the emperors toward the Christians,
which, not finding in their own age, they naturally transferred to a
previous age. This led gradually to the idea — which Lactantius
first gives precise expression to — that only the bad emperors perse-
cuted Christianity, while the good ones were favorable to it. But
after the empire became Christian, the belief became common that
all the heathen emperors had been persecutors, the good as well as
the bad; — all the Christian emperors were placed upon one level,
and all the heathen on another, the latter being looked upon,
like Nero and Domitian, as wicked tyrants. Compare Over-
bccl^ / c,
15' Our two MSS. of Justin have substituted the Greek transla-
tion of Eusebius for the Latin original given by the former. Rufinus,
however, in his version of Eusebius' History, gives a Latm transla-
(Aus dem Urchristcnthuvi, p. 184 sq.) contends that the Latin ol
Rufinus is net the original, but a translation of Eusebius t^jeek.
His arguments, however, do not possess any real weight, and the
majority of scholars accept Kimmel's view.
»« Justin, Apol. I. 68.
l82
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. s.
speaking the truth in this matter also. And
8 this is the copy." After these words the
author referred to gives the rescript in
Latin, which we have translated into Greek as
accurately as we could.^' It reads as follows :
CHAPTER IX.
The Epistle of Adrian, decreeing thai 7ve should
not be punished without a Trial.
1 " To Minucius Fundanus. I have received
an epistle/ written to me by Serennius
Granianus, a most illustrious man, whom you
have succeeded. It does not seem right to me
that the matter should be passed by without
examination, lest the men^ be harassed and
opportunity be given to the informers for
2 practicing villainy. If, therefore, the inhab-
itants of the province can clearly sustain
this petition against the Christians so as to give
answer in a court of law, let them pursue this
course alone, but let them not have resort to
men's petitions and outcries. For it is far more
proper, if any one wishes to make an accu-
sation, that you should examine into it.
3 If any one therefore accuses them and
shows that they are doing anything con-
trary to the laws, do you pass judgment accord-
ing to the heinousness of the crime." But, by
Hercules ! if any one bring an accusation
through mere calumny, decide in regard to his
criminality,^ and see to it that you inflict pun-
ishment." ^
Such are the contents of Adrian's rescript.
1' We cannot judge as to the faithfulness of the Greek trans-
lation which follows, because we are not absolutely sure whether
the Latin of Rufinus is its original, or itself a translation of it.
Eusebius and Rufinus, however, agree very well, and if the
Latin of Rufinus is the original of Eusebius' translation, the lat-
ter has succeeded much belter than the Greek translator of the
Apology of TcrtuUian referred to in Bk. II. chap. 2, above. We
should expect, however, that much greater pains would be taken
with the translation of a brief official document of this kind than
with such a work as Tertullian's Apology, and Eusebius' translation
of the rescript does not by any means prove that he was a fluent
Latin scholar. As remarked above (Bk. II. chap. 2, note 9), he
probably had comparatively little acquaintance with the Latin, but
enough to enable him to translate brief passages for himself in cases
of necessity.
^ Greek, t7ri(7ToA^i'; \-,^\!\n,litteras.
^ Greek, oi di-Spiuiroi; Latin, inno-Xii.
' This is the only really suspicious sentence in the edict. That
Hadrian should desire to protect his Christian subjects as well as
others from tumultuous and illegal proceedings, and from unfounded
accusations, would be of course quite natural, and quite in accord
with the spirit shown by Trajan in his rescript. But in this one
sentence he implies that the Christians are to be condemned only
for actual crimes, and that the mere profession of Christianity is not
in itself a punishable offense. Much, therefore, as we might other-
wise be tempted to accept the edict as genuine, — natural as the
style is and the position taken in the other portions of it, — tliis one
sentence, considered in the light of all that we know of the attitude
of Hadrian's predecessors and successors toward the Christians, and
of all that we can gather of his own views, must, as I believe, con-
demn it as a forgery.
* Compare this sentence with the closing words of the forged
edict of Antoninus Pius quoted by Eusebius in chap. 13. Not only
are the Christians to be released, but their accusers are to be pun-
ished. Still there is a difference between the two commands in that
here only an accusation m.ade with the purpose of slaniler is to be
punished, while there the accuser is to be uncondition.illy held as
guilty, if actual crimes arc not proved against the accused Christian,
CHAPTER X.
The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during
the Reign of Antoninus.
Adrlvn having died after a reign of twenty-
one years,^ was succeeded in the government of
the Romans by Antoninus, called the Pious.
In the first year of his reign Telesphorus '^ died
in the eleventh year of his episcopate, and Hy-
ginus became bishop of Rome.^ Irena^us
records that Telesphorus' death was made glo-
rious by martyrdom,'' and in the same connec-
tion he states that in the time of the above-
mentioned Roman bishop Hyginus, Valentinus,
the founder of a sect of his own, and Cerdon,
the author of Marcion's error, were both well
known at Rome.* He writes as follows : ^
CHAPTER XI.
The Heresiarchs of that Age.
" For Valentinus came to Rome under I
Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and re-
mained until Anicetus.^ Cerdon^ also, Mar-
The latter command would be subversive of all justice, and brands
itself as a counterfeit on its very face; but in the present case the
injunction to enforce the law forbidding slander against those who
should slanderously accuse the Christians is not inconsistent with
the principles of Trajan and Hadrian, and hence not of itself alone
an evidence of ungenuineness.
6 Greek, ottios av iKSi.KricriLa';; Latin, suppliciis severioribtis
vindices.
1 Hadrian reigned from Aug. 8, 117, to July 10, 138 A.D.
- On Telesphorus, see above, chap. 5, note 13. The date given
here by Eusebius (138-139 a.d.) is probably (as remarked there) at
least a year too late.
•* We know very little about Hyginus. His dates can be fixed
with tolerable certainty as i37-i4r, the duration of his episcopate
being four years, as Eusebius states in the next chapter. See Lip-
sius' Chyon. d. roin. Bischofc, p. 169 and 263. The Roman mar-
tyrologies make him a martyr, but this means nothing, as the early
bishops of Rome almost without exception are called martyrs by
these documents. The forged decretals ascribe to him the introduc-
tion of a number of ecclesiastical rites.
■• In his Adv. Hcer. HI. 3. 3. The testimony of Irenaus rests
upon Roman tradition at this point, and is undoubtedly reliable.
Telesphorus is the first Roman bishop whom we know to have
suffered martyrdom, although the Roman Catholic Church celebrates
as martyrs all the so-called popes down to the fourth century.
'' On Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion, see the next chapter.
6 Ircna;us, Adv. Hifr. III. 4. 3.
1 Valentinus is the best known of the Gnostics. According to
Epiphanius {Hier. XXXI. 2) he was born on the coast of Egypt,
and studied Greek literature and science at Alexandria. The same
writer, on the authority of the lost .Sy>itag»ia of Hijiijolytus, informs
us that he taught in Cyprus, and this must have been before he went
to Rome. The direct statement of Irena;us as to the date of his
.activity there is confirmed by Tertullian, and perhaps by Clement
of Alexandria, and is not to be doubted. Since Hyginus held office
in all probability from 137-141, and Anicetus from 154 or 155 to 166
or 167, Valentinus must have been in Rome at least thirteen years.
His chronological position between Basilides and Marcion (as given
by Clement of Alexandria, Sirnm. VH. 17) makes it probable that
he caine to Rome early in Antoninus' reign, and remained there
during all or the most of that reign, but not longer. Valentinus'
followers divided into two schools, an Oriental and an Italian, and
constituted by far the most numerous and influential Gnostic sect.
His system is the most profound and artistic of the Gnostic .systems,
and reveals great depth and power of mind. For an excellent
account of Valentinus and Valentinianism, see Lipsiiis' article in
the Dirt. 0/ Christ. Biog. Vol. IV. Valentinus occupies a promi-
nent ])lace in all works on Gnosticism.
2 Cerdon is best known as the teacher of Marcion. Epiphanius
{Hier. XLl.) and Phiiastcr {Ha:r. XLIV.) call him a native of Syria.
IV. II.]
VALENTINUS, CERDON AND MARCION.
183
cion's^ predecessor, entered the Church in the
time of Hyginus, the ninth * bishop, and made
confession, and continued in this way, now
teaching in secret, now making confession again,
and now denounced for corrupt doctrine and
withdrawing-' from the assembly of the brethren."
These words are found in the third book of
2 the work Against Heresies. And again in
the first book he speaks as follows concern-
ing Cerdon : "^ "A certain Cerdon, who had taken
his system from the followers of Simon, and had
come to Rome under Hyginus, the ninth in the
episcopal succession from the apostles,'' taught
that the God proclaimed by the law and proph-
ets was not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the former was known, but the latter un-
Epiphanius speaks of a sect of Cerdonians, but there seems never
to have been such a sect, and his disciples probably early became
followers of Marcion, who joined Cerdon soon after reaching Rome.
It is not possiblt; to distinguish his teachings from those of his pupil,
Marcion. Hippolytus (X. 15) treats Cerdon and Marcion together,
making no attempt to distinguish their doctrines. Irenasus, in the
passage quoted, and the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus (represented
by Pseudo-Tertullian's Adv. Har. and by Epiphanius) distinguish
the two, treating Cerdon separately but very briefly. The doctrines
of Cerdon, however, given by them, are identical with or at least
very similar to the known views of Marcion. If they were really
Cerdon's positions before Marcion came to him, then his influence
over Marcion was most decided.
3 On Marcion, see below, note 24.
^ The Latin text of Irenseus here reads "eighth" instead of
" ninth." See below, note 7.
^ iif>i.crTa.iJ.evo<;. This is commonly taken to mean that Cerdon
was excommunicated. But as Valesius remarks, the participle is
strictly middle, not passive. The distinction, however, cannot be
insisted upon in the present case, and therefore we cannot determine
decisively whether Cerdon was excluded by the congregation or
excluded himself.
'■ Irenaeus, Adv. Hier. I. 27. 1-2.
'' Hyginus is here called the ninth bishop, and the reading is
confirmed by a passage in Cyprian's epistle to Pompey (.£/. LXXIII.
2 in the AiUe-.Vicciie Fatkers), and also by Epiphanius {Hcer.
LXI. i). In the passage quoted just above, however, from the
third book of Irenseus, although Eusebius calls Hyginus the " ninth,"
the Latin text of Irenaeus makes him the " eighth," and according to
Salmon in the Diet, cf Christ. Biog. : "The MS. evidence is
decisive that Irenaeus here [in the passage quoted above from III.
4. 3] describes Hyginus as the eighth bishop, and this agrees with
the list of Roman bishops given in the preceding chapter {Adv.
Hier. III. 3. 3), and with the description of Anicetus as the tenth
bishop a couple of chapters further on. Lipsius hence infers that
Irenaeus drew his account of Cerdon from two sources in which
Hyginus was differently described, but this inference is very preca-
rious. In the interval between the composition of the first and third
books, Irenseus may have been led to alter his way of counting by
investigations concerning the succession of the Roman bishops,
which he had in the meantime either made himself, or adopted from
Hegesippus. As for the numeration ' ninth,' we do not venture to
pronounce whether it indicates a list in which Peter was counted
first bishop, or one in which Cletus and Anacletus were reckoned as
distinct." According to Eusebius' own reckoning up to the present
chapter, Hyginus was the eighth, not the ninth, from the apostles, for
in chap. 5, above, he calls Telesphorus (Hyginus' predecessor) the
seventh, in chap, i, Alexander (the predecessor of Xystus, who pre-
ceded Telesphorus) the fifth, and so on. Why, in the passage quoted
at the beginning of this chapter, he should change his reckoning,
and call Hyginus the ninth if the original list of Irenaeus from which
he drew said eighth is difficult to see. It is possible that he made
the change under the influence of the " ninth," in the present pas-
sage, which certainly stood in the original text. It would be easier
to think this if the order in which the passages are quoted were
reversed, but it may be that Eusebius had the present quotation in
mind when making the first, or that he went back after%vard and
corrected that to correspond. If he ventured to change the text of
Irenaeus in that passage, he must have done it in all good faith,
assuming a mistake in transcription, where the contradiction was so
glaring. It still remains to me inexplicable, however, why lie did
not change the " ninth " of the second passage to " eighth " instead
of the "eighth" of the first passage to " ninth." He would thus
have gotten rid of all contradictions, and have remained consistent
with himself. I am tempted, in fact, to believe that Eusebius found
" ninth " in the original of both passages quoted, and copied just
what he found. At the same time, I do not feel disposed in the face
of what Lipsius and Salmon say as to the original text of Irenaeus to
claim that Irenaeus himself wrote " ninth " at that point.
known ; and the former was just, but the latter
good.* Marcion of Pontus succeeded Cerdon
and developed his doctrine, uttering shame-
less blasphemies." The same Irenaeus un- 3
folds with the greatest vigor the unfathomable
abyss of Valentinus' errors in regard to matter,
and reveals his wickedness, secret and hid-
den like a serpent lurking in its nest. And 4
in addition to these men he says that there
was also another that lived in that age, Marcus
by name,^ who was remarkably skilled in magic
arts. And he describes also their unholy initia-
tions and their abominable mysteries in the
following words : ^" " For some of them pre- 5
pare a nuptial couch and perform a mystic
rite with certain forms of expression addressed
to those who are being initiated, and they say
that it is a spiritual marriage which is cele-
brated by them, after the likeness of the mar-
riages above. But others lead them to water, and
while they baptize them they repeat the follow-
ing words : Into the name of the unknown
father of the universe, into truth, the mother of
all things, into the one that descended upon
Jesus." Others repeat Hebrew names ^- in order
the better to confound those who are being
initiated."
But Hyginus ^^ having died at the close 6
of the fourth year of his episcopate, Pius "
8 Marcion drew this same distinction between the strictly just
God of the Old Testament and the good or merciful God of the New,
and the distinction was a fundamental one in his system. It is
noticeable that Pseudo-TertuUian {Adv. Ointies Hcer. chap. 6) says
that Cerdon taught two Gods, one good, the other cruel {stEvutii) ;
the good being the superior God, — the latter, the cruel one, being
the creator of the world.
^ Irenaeus gives an account of Marcus and the Marcosians in
I. 13-21. He was a Gnostic of the sect of Valentinus. Jerome calls
him a Basilidian (£■/. LXXV. 3), but he was mistaken. Hippolytus
and Epiphanius {Hier. 34) copy their accounts from Irenaeus, and
probably had no direct knowledge of the works of Marcus, or of his
sect. Clement of Alexandria, however, knew and used his writings.
It is probable that Asia Minor was the scene of his labors. He is
spoken of in the present tense by Irenaeus, and hence seems to have
been alive when he wrote; that is, in the latter part of the second
century. His additions to Valentinianism lay chiefly, perhaps solely,
in the introduction of worthless magic rites. He seems to have
lowered greatly the tone of the philosophical Gnosticism of Valenti-
nus. See Salmon's article in the Diet, of Christ. Biog.
1" Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. I. 21. 3.
tt eis Toi' KareASdi'Ta ei; I'ov '\-r\<jovv. Taking the Greek simply
as it stands, we should naturally put a comma before the second ti?,
and translate " into the one that descended, into Jesus," identifying
the " one that descended" with Jesus. But the Gnostics in general
taught that Jesus was only a man, upon whom descended one of the
aeons, or higher spiritual powers, and hence it is plain that in the
present case the "one that descended upon [or literally "into"]
Jesus" is referred to here as the third person of the baptismal
Trinity.
12 The Greek and Latin texts of Irenaeus add at this point widely
variant lists of these words, but in both lists the words are quite
meaningless.
13 On Hyginus, see the previous chapter, note 3.
>i Eusebius states, just below, that Pius held office fifteen years,
and in his Chronicle he gives the same figure. In that work (Ar-
men. version) he places his accession in the first year of Antoninus
Pius, though the version of Jerome assigns it to the fifth year, and
with this Eusebius agrees in his History, for in the previous chapter
he puts the accession of Hyginus in the first year of Antoninus Pius,
and here tells us that Hyginus held office four years. Lipsius as-
signs Pius' episcopate to the years 139-154, as the earliest possible
termini; the years 141-156 as the latest. But since we learn from
chapter 14, below, that Polycarp was in Rome during the episcopate
of Anicetus, and from other sources (see chapter 15, note 2) that
he was martyred in Asia Minor in 155 or 156, we may assume it as
certain that Pins cannot have held office as late as 156. The earlier
date for his death (154) may therefore be accepted as more probable.
184
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV.
II.
succeeded him in the government of the church
of Rome. In Alexandria Marcus ^^ was ap-
pointed pastor, after Eumenes ''^ had filled the
office thirteen years in all. And Marcus having
died after holding office ten years was succeeded
by Celadion'" in the government of the
7 church of Alexandria, And in Rome Pius
died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate,
and Anicetus^* assumed the leadership of the
Christians there. Hegesippus records that he
himself was in Rome at this time, and that he
remained there until the episcopate of Eleu-
therus.^^
8 But Justin -" was especially prominent in
The Liberian and Felician Catalogues put Anicetus between Hygi-
nus and Pius; but that is certainly incorrect, for, in support of the
order given here by Eusebius, we have the testimony both of Hege-
sippus, quoted below, in chap. 22, and of Ireneeus (III. 3). Pius is
commonly regarded as the first monarchical bishop in the strict
sense, the so-called bishops before his time having been simply lead-
ing presbyters or presbyter bishops of the Roman church (see chap.
II, note 14). According to the Muratorian Fragment and the Libe-
rian Catalogue, Pius was the brother of Hermas, the author of the
Shepherd. Upon this alleged relationship, see Bk. III. chap. 3,
note 23.
15 Of Marcus we know only what Eusebius tells us here: that he
succeeded Eumenes, after the latter had held ofifice thirteen years,
and that he continued in office ten years. If Eumenes became bishop
in 132 or 133 (see above, chap. 5, note 16), then Marcus must have
succeeded him in 145 or 146, and this agrees with the Armenian
Chron. of Eusebius, which, while it does not mention the accession
of Marcus, yet puts the accession of his successor Celadin in the
eighteenth year of Antoninus Pius, which would make the begin-
ning of his own episcopate the eighth year of the same ruler. Je-
rome's version of the Chroii., however, puts it in the sixth year.
Little reliance is to be placed upon any of the dates of the Alexan-
drian bishops during the first two centuries.
1" On Eumenes, see above, chap. 5, note 14.
" Of Celadion we know only what Eusebius tells us here, and in
chap. 19, where he gives fourteen years as the duration of his epis-
copate. As mentioned in the previous note, the Armenian Chron.
of Eusebius puts his accession in the eighteenth year of Antoninus
Pius, i.e. 155 or 156, while the version of Jerome puts it in the si.x-
teenth year.
1* Anicetus, according to the Armenian Chron. of Eusebius, suc-
ceeded Pius in the fifteenth year of Antoninus Pius; according to
Jerome's version, in the eighteenth year (i.e. 155 or 156), which is
more nearly correct. Lipsius puts his accession between 154 and
156 (see note 14, above). According to chap. 19, below, with which
both versions of the Chron. agree, Anicetus held office eleven years;
i.e. until 165 to 167, when he was succeeded by Soter. Irenaeus (as
quoted by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 24) informs us that Polycarp
was in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and endeavored to induce him
to adopt the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter; but that,
while the two remained perfectly friendly to one another, Anicetus
would not change the custom of the Roman church (see the notes
on the chapter referred to). As stated in note 13, the Liberian and
Felician Catalogues incorrectly insert the name of Anicetus between
those of Hyginus and Pius.
i" Eusebius evidently makes a mistake here. That Hegesippus
remained so long in Rome (Anicetus ruled from 154-168 (?), and
Eleulherus from 177-igo) is upon the face of it very improbable.
And in this case we can sec clearly how Eusebius made his mistake.
In chap. 22 he quotes a passage from Hegesippus in regard to his
stay in Rome, and it was in all probability this pass.age from which
Eusebius drew his conclusion. But Hegesippus says there that he
" remained in Rome until the time of Anicetus," &c. It is probable,
therefore, that he returned to the East during Anicetus' episcopacy.
He does not e.vprcss himself .as one who had remained in Rome until
the reign of Eleulherus; but Eusebius, from a hasty reading, miglil
easily have gathered that idea. According to Hegesippus' account
in chap. 22, he must, then, have come to Rome before Anicetus, i.e.
during the reign of Pius, and this Eusebius docs not here contr.adict,
though he is said to do so by Reading, who translates the Greek
words, i■^l.tr\^l.r\<Ja.l rn "Punn, "came to the city" (so, also, CIoss,
Stigloher, and Crusfe). But the words properly mean "to be in
Rome," not " to come to Rome," which would require, rather, en-i-
hi\^.T\aai. eis Tiji/ 'I'cu^Tjr, as in § 2, above, where the words are used
of Cerdon. Jerome, to be sure {de 7itr. ill. 22), says that Hegesip-
pus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus; but his account rests
solely upon Eusebius, whom he mistranslated. The tradition, there-
fore, that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus has no
foundation; he was already there, as he himself informs us, in chap.
22, below. Cf. the note on this passage, in chap. 22.
^^ Eusebius here puts Justin in his proper place, in the time of
Antoninus Pius. The date of his birth is unknown, though it can-
those days. In the guise of a philosopher^^
he preached the divine word, and contended for
the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work
against Marcion," in which he states that
the latter was alive at the time he wrote. He 9
speaks as follows : ^ *' And there is a cer-
tain Marcion ^^ of Pontus,-^ who is even now
not have been far from the beginning of the second century. He
was born in Flavia Neapolis, a Roman town built close by the ruins
of the ancient Sychem, in Samaria. He was of heathen parentage,
and received a thoroughly Greek education. He became an earnest
student of philosophy, and after turning to many different systems
in his search for truth, he was at last converted to Christianity,
where he found that for which he had been searching; and his whole
conception of Christianity shows the influence of the manner in which
he accepted it. The date of his conversion is unknown, but it seems
(from Dial. I. i) to have taken place at least before the close of the
I3arcochba war (135 a.d.). He died as a martyr at Rome. The
date of his death is difficult to determine, but it probably took place
under Marcus Aurelius, in 163 + . Upon his death, see below, chap.
16, note 4. Upon Justin, see Semich's Justin der Rl'drtyrer,
Otto's edition of the Greek Apologists, von Engelhardt's article
in Herzog, 2d ed., Holland's article in Smith and Wace's Diet, oj
Christ. Biog., and finally Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. p. iiosq., where
the mo.st important literature is mentioned. Upon his theology, see
especially von Engelhardt's masterly monograph, Das Christen-
thum Justins des Mdrtyrers (Erlangen, 1878). A recent and in-
teresting discussion of Justin's testimony to early Christianity is
found in Purves' work on that subject (New York, 1889).
-1 iv axr\^a.T\. <j)i.\o<T6<f>ov. The reference here is to the distinc-
tive cloak or mantle of the Greek philosophers, which was called the
pallium, and to which Justin refers in his Dial. c. Trypho, §1.
The wearing of the mantle was an advantage to the philosophers, in-
asmuch as it gave them peculiar opportunities to engage in phil-
osophic discourse in the street or market, or other public places,
which they could not otherwise so easily have enjoyed. Perhaps it
was this fact which led Justin to continue wearing the cloak, and we
see from the introduction to his Dialogue that it was the wearing of
it which was the immediate occasion of his conversation with Trypho
and his friends. Heraclas, the friend of Origen, also continued to
wear the philosopher's cloak after his conversion, as we learn from
Bk. VI. chap. 19.
22 This work against Marcion is also mentioned by Irenaeus, who
quotes from it in his Adv. Hcer. IV. 16. 2 (see below, chap. 18),
and by Photius, Cod. 125. The work is lost, and we have only the
single brief fragment preserved by Irenajus. It is possible that it
formed a part of the larger Syntagma contra ovines Hiereses,
mentioned by Justin in his Apol. I. 26 (see below), and it has been
urged in support of this possibility that Irenaeus nowhere mentions
a work of Justin's Against all Heresies, although it is highly prob-
able that he made use of such a work (see Lipsius' Qnellen der iilt-
esten Kctzergesch. and Harnack's Zur Qucllcnkritik des Gnosti-
cistnus). It would seem that Irenaeus is referring to this work when
he mentions the Syntagma co)itra Marcionetn. On the other hand,
Photius mentions the work against Marcion and the one against all
heresies as two separate works. He does not seem, however, to
have had a personal knowledge of them, and is possibly only repeat-
ing Eusebius (Harnack says he is certainly domg so, Ucberliefer-
ung d. gricch. Apol. p. 150; but in view of the fact that he omits
two works mentioned by Eusebius, this seems to me somewhat doubt-
ful) ; and if this is so, no reliance is to be placed upon his report, for
it is evident that Eusebius himself knew neither of the two works,
and hence the fact that he distinguishes them has no significance.
Although, therefore, it cannot be determined whether Justin wrote
two separate works against heretics, it is quite probable that he did
not.
The conduct of Eusebius in this connection is very peculiar.
After mentioning the work against Marcion, he at once gives a quo-
tation in such a way as to convey the impression that the quotation
is taken from this work, but it is really t.aken from the first Apology.
This makes it very probable that he had not seen this work against
Marcion, a conclusion which is confirmed by its omission from the
list of Justin's writings given in chap. 18. It is claimed by many
that Eusebius practices a little deception here, wishing to convey the
impression that he knew a book which he did not know. This is not
in accord with his usual conduct (as he seldom hesitates to confess
his ignorance of any matter) , and his general char.acter for candor
and honesty must be taken into account in deciding the case. He
does not state directly that the quotation is taken from the work
against Marcion, and it is possible that the seeming reference of it
to that source was an oversight on his part. But it must be ac-
knowledged, if that be the case, that he was vciy careless in making
the quotation. -^ Justin, Apol. I. 26.
" Marcion cannot be called a Gnostic in the strict sense of the
term. He was rather an anti-Jewish reformer. He had much in
common with the Gnostics, but laid stress upon belief rather than
upon knowledge. He developed no complete system as did the
other Gnostics, but aimed at a practical reform in the interest of an
extreme and perverted Paulinism, considering Paul the only true
apostle and rejecting the others as Judaizing teachers. He cut the
Gospel away from its historical connections, repudiating the Old
IV. 12.]
JUSTIN'S APOLOGY.
185
still teaching his followers to think that there is
some other God greater than the creator. And
by the aid of the demons-'^ he has persuaded
many of every race of men "' to utter blasphemy,
and to deny that the maker of this universe is
the father of Christ, and to confess that some
other, greater than he, was the creator.-** And
all who foUowctl them are, as we have said,-"-'
called Christians, just as the name of philosophy
is given to philosophers, although they
10 may have no doctrines in common." To
this he adds : ''" " And we have also written
a work against all the heresies that have existed,"^
which we will give you if you wish to read
it."
Testament and all of the New except a mutilated Gospel of Luke
and the Epistles of Paul, and denying the identity of the God of the
Old Testament with the Supreme God, and the identity of Jesus
with the promised Jewish Messiah. He magnified the mercy of
God in redemption at the expense of creation, which he attributed
to the demiurge, and in which he saw nothing good. He was an
extreme anti-metaphysician, and the first Biblical critic. He was
born in Pontus, was the son of a bishop, went to Rome about 135
A.D., and endeavored to carry out his reforms there, but was unsuc-
cessful, and very soon broke with the Church. He traveled exten-
sively and disseminated his doctrines very widely. The sect existed
well on into the Middle Ages, and some of his opinions have never
been completely eradicated. In Rome the Gnostic Cerdon exercised
great influence over him, and to him are doubtless due many of
Marcion's Gnostic traits. The dualism which he held in common
with the Gnostics arose rather from practical than specidative con-
siderations; but his followers in the fourth and fifth centuries, when
they had lost his practical religious spirit and yet retained his dual-
ism, passed over quite naturally into RIanicheeism. He was attacked
by Justin, Irenseus, Tertullian, and all the anti-heretical writers of
the early Church, and was considered one of the most dangerous of
heretics. A complete monograph upon Marcion is still a desidera-
tum, but he is discussed in all the general accounts of Gnosticism;
see especially the brief but excellent account by Harnack, Dogmeii-
geschichtc, I. 197-214.
2o Pontus was a province in Northeastern Asia Minor, bordering
upon the Black Sea.
^li Justin here agrees with Eusebius in his transcendental theory
of heresy, looking upon it not as a natural growth from within, but
as an infliction upon the Church from without, through the agency
of demons. Indeed, this was the prevailing notion of the early
Church.
2' The extent of Marcion's influence referred to here is very
significant. Gnosticism was not intended for common people, and
never spread among the masses, but on the contrary was confined
to philosophers and speculative thinkers. In this respect, Marcion,
whose sect included multitudes of all classes, was distinguished
most sharply from them, and it was because of the popularity of his
sect that his heresy appeared so dangerous to the early Church.
23 aAAoi' 6e Jiva. (09, Ofxa /xet^oi'a Trapo. ToOrof o/xoAoyett' TrtTrotT^-
KtVai. The sentence as it thus stands is very difficult to construe,
for we are compelled to take the last verb without an object, in the
sense of create. Our MSS. of Justin Martyr insert after the (os
avTO. ijiei^oua the words ra jxei^ova, and the sentence then reads,
" some other one, greater than he, has done greater works." It is
plain that this was the original form of the sentence, and that the
harsh construction found in Eusebius is a result of defective tran-
scription. It was very easy for a copyist to drop out the second
2" Justin refers here to Apol. I. 7. He wishes to have it cleai
that not all that call themselves Christians are really such. From
chaps. 26-29, we see that in Justin's time the Christians were ac-
cused of great immoralities, and in this same chapter (chap. 26) he
is rather inclined to throw the guilt upon heretics, although he does
not expressly accuse them of it (" whether they perpetrate these
shameful deeds — we know not "). See above, chap. 7, note 20.
His mention of philosophers here in his appeal to the philosophi-
cal emperors is very shrewd.
30 Ibid. I. 26.
3t This work is not mentioned by Eusebius in the list of Justin's
works which he gives in chap. 18. He had, therefore, undoubtedly
never seen it. Irenseus nowhere mentions it under this title, though
he seems to have made extensive use of it, and he does mention a
work. Against Marcion, which is very likely to be identified with
the work referred to here (see Harnack's Zur Qucllenkritik cies
Cnosticismus). The work, which is now lost, is mentioned by
Photius {Cod. 125), but he evidently had never seen it, and is sim-
ply copying some earlier list, perhaps that of Eusebius. His testi-
mony to the work, therefore, amounts to little. Compare note 22,
above.
But this same Justin contended most sue- 11
cessfully against the Greeks, and addressed
discourses containing an apology for our faith
to the Emperor Antoninus, called Pius, and to
the Roman senate.'^" For he lived at Rome.
But who and whence he was he shows in his
Apology in the following words.^
CHAPTER XII.
The Apology of 'yustin addressed to Antoninus.
" To the Emperor Titus yElius Adrian Anto-
ninus Pius Caesar Augustus/ and to Verissimus
his son,- the philosopher, and to Lucius the
philosopher,^ own son of Cffisar and adopted son
of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred
senate and to the whole Roman people, I, Jus-
tin, son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius,* of
Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, Syria, present this
address and petition in behalf of those men of
every nation who are unjustly hated and perse-
cuted, I myself being one of them." And the
same emperor having learned also from other
brethren in Asia of the injuries of all kinds which
they were suffering from the inhabitants of the
province, thought it proper to address the fol-
lowing ordinance to the Common Assembly ^ of
Asia.
32 On Justin's Apology and his work Against the Greeks, see
below, chap. 18, notes 3 and 4. As shown in note 3 of that chapter,
he really wrote only one Apology.
■*■* Justin, Apol. I. I.
1 On the titles of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, see Otto's notes
in his edition of Justin's works {Corpus Apol. Christianorum,
Vol. I. p. 2 sq.).
2 That is, Marcus Aurelius, whose original name was Marcus
Annius Verus, but who, after his adoption by the Emperor Antoni-
nus Pius, was styled Marcus ^Elius Aurelius Verus Causar. As a
tribute to his sincerity and truthfulness, he was quite commonly
called, instead of Vcr?es, Verissiimcs.
3 The MSS. are divided here between the forms <l)i\oa-6<ftw and
<t>i\o<T6(j>ov. If the former reading be adopted, we must translate as
we have done, " to Lucius, the philosopher, own son of Caesar."
If the latter reading be followed, we must translate, " to Lucius,
own son of Caesar the philosopher." The MSS. are about equally
divided, and the latter reading is adopted by Stephanus, Valesius,
Stroth, and Burton. But our MSS. of Justin support the former
reading, which is adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen, and which,
as the latter remarks, is far more natural than the other reading, for
Justin had greater reason for giving the appellation of " philoso-
pher" to a Caesar who was still living, even though he may not have
been noted for his philosophical tastes, than to a Catsar who was
already dead, and whose character certainly entitled him to the
appellation no more than, if as much as, his son. See Heinichen's
note in loco, and Otto's note in his edition of Justin's works. Vol. I.
p. 3 ff". The Lucius addressed here was Lucius Ceionius Commo-
dus, whose father, bearing the same name, had been adopted as
Caesar by Hadrian. The younger Lucius was adopted as Caesar
along with Marcus by Antoninus Pius, and later became Marcus'
colleague in the empire, when he added to his own name the name
Verus, which Marcus had formerly borne. He is therefore com-
monly known in history as Lucius Verus (see the respective articles
in Smith's Did. of Greek and Roman Biog.).
* Of Justin's father and grandfather we know nothing except
their names. On the place of his birth, see above, chap. 11, note 20.
s This " Assembly of Asia " (to koivov t^? 'Aaia?) was one of
the regular provincial diets which Augustus had called into being as
fixed institutions. It was an annual assembly of the civic deputies
of the province, and served as a general organ of the province, espe-
cially in bringing the wishes of "the people to the knowledge of the
governor, and through him to the emperor, and decrees of the empe-
ror were often addressed to it, and legates chosen by it were sent to
the emperor whenever occasion required. See Marquardt, Horn,
Staatsvcrwalticng, \. p. 366 sq.
1 86
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 13.
CHAPTER XIII.
The Epistle of Antotiinus to the Common As-
seinbly of Asia in Regard to our Doctrine}
1 "The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus Augustus,- Armenicus, Pontifex
Maximus, for the fifteenth time Tribune, for the
third time Consul, to the Common Assem-
2 bly of Asia, Greeting. I know that the gods
also take care that such persons do not es-
cape detection. For they would much rather
punish those who will not worship them
3 than you would. But you throw them into
confusion, and while you accuse them of
atheism you only confirm them in the opinion
which they hold. It would indeed be more de-
sirable for them, when accused, to appear to die
for their God, than to live. Wherefore also they
come off victorious when they give up their lives
rather than yield obedience to your com-
4 mands. And in regard to the earthquakes
which have been and are still taking place;'^
it is not improper to admonish you who lose
heart whenever they occur, and nevertheless are
accustomed to compare your conduct with
5 theirs.'* They indeed become the more con-
1 This edict is undoubtedly spurious. It contradicts all that we
know in regard to the relation of Christianity to the State during this
century, and both the language and the sentiments make it impos-
sible to call it genuine. It is probably a forgery of the second cen-
tury. It is found in our two (or more properly one, as one is simply
a slavish copy of the other) MSS. of Justin; but this is simply ac-
cidental, as it does not belong there, but was appended to the edict
of Hadrian by some late copyist. The edict is now almost univer-
sally acknowledged to be a forgery; compare Overbeck, Studioi zttr
Cesch. der alt. Kirche, p. 93 sqq. Wieseler contends for its genu-
ineness, but no good critic follows him.
2 Eusebius gives this as an edict of Antoninus Pius, and yet its
inscription assigns it to Marcus Aurelius. Overbeck concludes that
Eusebius was led by internal evidence to assign the rescript to An-
toninus Pius, but that he did not venture to change the inscription
of the original which lay before him. This seems the only possible
explanation, and as Eusebius at any rate was badly confused in re-
gard to the names of the Antonines, the glaring discrepancy may
not have meant very much to him. In our MSS. of Justin Martyr,
where this edict is appended to the first Apology, the superscription
and le.\t are quite different from the form given by Eusebius. The
rescript is in fact assigned there by its superscription to Antoninus
Pius, instead of to Marcus Aurelius. But if that was its original
form, we cannot understand the later change to Marcus Aurelius,
for certainly his authorship is precluded on the very face of the
document; but it is easier to see how it could have been later as-
signed to Antoninus Pius under the influence of Eusebius' direct
statement. We have no knowledge of the original Latin of this pre-
tended edict. Rufinus evidently did not know it, for he translates
the document from the Greek of Eusebius. The text of the edict as
given by Eusebius differs considerably at many points from the te.\t
found in the MSS. of Justin, and the variations are such as can hardly
be explained as due merely to copyists' errors or alterations. At the
same time the two texts are plainly not independent of each other,
and cannot be looked upon as independent translations of one Latin
original. We may perhaps suppose that one text represents the
original translation, the other a revision of it. Whether the revision
was made by a comparison with the original, and thus more accu-
rately represents it, we cannot tell. If, then, one is a revision of the
other, the form given in the MSS. of Justin is evidently the later,
for its statements in more places than one are an improvement upon
those of the other text in point of clearness and decisiveness. More-
over, as remarked just above, the ascription of the edict to Anto-
ninus Pius must be later than its ascription to Marcus Aurelius.
^ Numerous earthquakes took place in Asia Minor and in Rhodes
during the reign of Antoninus Puis, and these, as well as famines
and other occurrences of the kind which were uncomfort.ably fre-
quent at this time, were always m.ade the signal for renewed attacks
upon the Christians, who were held by the people in general respon-
sible for these misfortunes. See Julius Capitolinus' Vita Antonini
Pit, chap. 9.
* This sentence has caused great difficulty, Crusfe translates,
fident in God, while you, during the whole
time, neglect, in apparent ignorance, the other
gods and the worship of the Immortal, and op-
press and persecute even unto death the
Christians who worship him.^ But in re- 6
gard to these persons, many of the governors
of the provinces wrote also to our most divine
father, to whom he wrote in reply that they should
not trouble these people unless it should appear
that they were attempting something affecting the
Roman government.'^ And to me also many
have sent communications concerning these
men, but I have replied to them in the
same way that my father did. But if any 7
one still persists in bringing accusations
against any of these people as such, the person
who is accused shall be acquitted of the charge,
even if it appear that he is one of them, but the
accuser shall be punished.'' Published in Ephe-
sus in the Common Assembly of Asia."
To these things MeUto,^ bishop of the 8
church of Sardis, and a man well known at
that time, is a witness,^ as is clear from his words
in the Apology which he addressed to the Em-
peror Verus in behalf of our doctrine.
" But as to those earthquakes which have taken place and still con-
tinue, it is not out of place to admonish you who are cast down
whenever these happen, that you compare your own deportment
with theirs." Most of the older translators and, among the mod-
erns, Stigloher, have translated in the same way; but the Greek of
the last clause will not warrant this construction. The original
runs as follows: . . . V7ro(x>')j(Tai a.6vixovvra<; ixkv orai/ Trep' uxri,
Trapa^aAAoi'Ta; 6e ra vix^TGpa npb^ ret e/cet'i'cur'. Stroth inserts ^ilj
before aSup.oOi'Ta;, and translates, " Was die Erdbcben betrift, die
sich ereignet haben, und noch creignen, halte ich nicht fUr undieii-
lich euch zu erinnern dass ihr den vorkommenden Fall den Muth
nicht sinken lasst, sonderu euer Betragen einmal mit jener ihrem
vergleicht." The insertion, however, is quite unwarranted and must
be rejected. Valesius renders: Cacteruin dc tcrrae inotibjts, qui
vel facti sunt vol etiainnuvt fiunt, non absttrduvi vidi'tur vos
com>nanere,qui et animos abjicitis, guoiies hiijitsmodi casjcs con-
iingunt, ct vcstra cum illoruiit insiiiuiis cojuparatis; which
makes excellent sense and might be accepted, were it not for the
fact that it fails to bring out adequately the force of [i-iv and 6e.
Heinichen discusses the passage at length (in his edition of Euse-
bius, Vol. III. pp. 670-674), and translates as follows: No7i
alicnum zndctur vos adinouere (corripere) de terrie motibus qui
vcl fuerunt vel adhuc sunt, vos qui estis quidciii anivio abjecto,
quoties illi eveiiiunt, nihilo autetn Jiiiiius vestram agcitdi 7-atio-
jtein cou/erre soleiis cum illoruiit. Overbeck follows Heinichen
in his German translation of the edict (^ibid. p. 127 sqq.), and tlie
translation of Closs is similar. It seems to be the only rendering
which the Greek will properly admit, and I have therefore felt com-
pelled to adopt it, though I should have preferred to interpret as
Valesius does, had the original permitted.
'■• An orthoilox worshiper of the Roman gods, like Antoninus
Pius, can hardly have called the God of the Christians " The Im-
mortal," in distinction from the gods of the Romans.
'' Among these epistles the writer of this edict undoubtedly meant
to include the rescript ostensibly addressed by Hadrian to Minucius
Fundanus. See chap. 9, above.
' This is the climax of the whole. Not only is the accused to be
set free, but the accuser is to be held as guilty! This really goes
further than Constantine. See above, chap. 9, note 4.
" On Melito and his writings, see chap. 26, note i.
•' Eusebius evidently draws this conclusion from the passage
from Melito's Apology, quoted below, in chap. 26, where Melito re-
fers to edicts of Antoninus Pius; for had Eusebius referred to an-
other passage, he would undoubtedly have quoted it. But accord-
ing to Melito, the edicts of Antoninus were to prevent any new
methods of procedure against the Christians, i.e. tumultuous pro-
ceedings in opposition to the custom est.ablished by Trajan. The
edicts of which he speaks were intended, then, to perjjctiiatc the
principles of Trajan, which had been, since his time, the silent law
of the empire upon the subject. The edicts cannot have been edicts
of toleration (even Melito himself does no' regard them so), but
edicts against illegal, tumultuous proceeding>, and the accusations of
informers, and therefore quite in the spirit of Trajan. But as the
significance of Trajan's rescript was entirely misunderstood in the
early Church (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33, note 6), so it was the
IV. 14.]
IREN/EUS ON POLYCARP.
187
CHAPTER XIV.
The Circumstances related of Polycarp, a Friend
of the Apostles.
1 At this time, while Anicetus was at the
head of the church of Rome/ Ircnoeus
relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was
at Rome,- and that he had a conference with
Anicetus on a question concerning the
2 day of the paschal feast.'' And the same
writer gives another account of Polycarp
which I feel constrained to add to that which has
been already related in regard to him. The ac-
count is taken from the third book of Irenseus'
work Against Heresies, and is as follows : *
3 " But Polycarp ^ also was not only instructed
common opinion that the attitude of the State toward the Church
was at bottom friendly to Christianity, and therefore all edicts for-
bidding the introduction of new methods were regarded as favorable
edicts, as in the present case by Eusebius. Again, had Melito
known of such a favorable edict as this of Antoninus, he would cer-
tainly have called special and particular attention to it. Melito's
testimony, therefore, instead of being in favor of the genuineness of
this edict, is really against it.
1 On Anicetus, see above, chap. 1 1 , note 18. He was bishop prob-
ably from 154 to 165 A.D.
2 yivecrQai. ini 'Pui/xTjs. It is quite commonly said that Polycarp
came to Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus; but our authori-
ties say only that he was in Rome at that time, and do not specify
the date at which he arrived there. Neither these words, nor the
words of Irenaeus in § 5 below (t';rt5r)n,)jcras t;; 'Pco/xr;)) are to be
translated " came to Rome," as is often done (e.g. by Crusfe, by
Roberts and Rambaut, in their translation of Irenseus, and by Salmon,
in the Diet, of Clirist. Biog.), but "was at Rome" (as Closs,
Stigloher, Lightfoot, &c., correctly render the words). Inasmuch
as Polycarp suffered martyrdom in 155 or 156 a.d. (see below, chap.
15, note 2), he must have left Rome soon after Anticetus' accession
(which took place probably in 154) ; and though of course he may
have come thither sometime before that event, still the fact that his
stay there is connected with Anicetus' episcopate, and his alone, im-
plies that he went thither either immediately after, or shortly before
Anicetus became bishop.
2 On the paschal controversies of the early Church, see below,,
r.k. V. chap. 23, note i. We learn from Bk. V. chap. 24, that
though Polycarp and Anicetus did not reach an agreement on the
subject, they nevertheless remained good friends, and that Polycarp
celebrated the eucharist in Rome at the request of Anicetus.
■• Irena;us, Adv. Hcer. III. 3. 4.
8 Eusebius takes his account of Polycarp solely from Irenceus,
and from the epistle of the church of Smyrna, given in the ne,\t
chapter. He is mentioned by Irenseus again in his Adv. Hcer. V.
33. 4 (quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 39), and in his epistle
to Florinus and to Victor. From the epistle to Florinus (quoted
below in Bk. V. chap. 20), where quite an account of Polycarp is
given, we learn that the latter was Irenaeus' teacher. He was one
of the most celebrated men of the time, not because of his ability or
scholarship, but because he had been a personal friend of some
of the disciples of the Lord, and lived to a great age, when few
if any were still alive that had known the first generation of Chris-
tians. He suffered martyrdom about 155 a.d. (see below, chap. 15,
note 2) ; and as he was at least eighty-si-v years old at the time of his
death (see the ne.xt chap., § 20), he must have been born as early as
70 A.D. He was a personal disciple of John the apostle, as we learn
from Irensus' epistle to Florinus, and was acquainted also with
ethers that had seen the Lord. That he was at the head of the
church of Smyrna cannot be doubted (cf. Ignatius' epistle to him),
but Irenaeus' statement that he was appointed bishop of Smyrna by
apostles is probably to be looked upon as a combination of his own.
He reasoned that bishops were the successors of the apostles ; Poly-
carp was a bishop, and lived in the time of the apostles; and there-
fore he must have been appointed by them. The only known
writing of Polycarp's is his epistle to the Philippians, which is still
extant (see below, note 16). His character is plainly revealed
in that epistle as well as in the accounts given us by Irenaeus and
by the church of Smyrna in their epistle. He was a devoutly pious
and simple-minded Christian, burning with intense personal love for
his Master, and yet not at all fanatical like his contemporary Igna-
tius. The instances related in this chapter show his intense horror
of heretics, of those whom he believed to be corrupting the doctrine
of Christ, and yet he does not seem to have had the taste or talent to
refute their errors. He simply wished to avoid them as instruments
of Satan. He was pre-eminently a man that lived in the past. His
epistle is full of reminiscences of New Testament thought and lan-
guage, and his chief significance to the Christians of the second
by apostles, and acquainted' with many that
had seen Christ, but was also appointed by
apostles in Asia bishop of the church of
Smyrna/' We too saw him in our early 4
youth ; for he lived a long time, and died,
when a very old man, a glorious and most il-
lustrious martyr's death,^ having always taught
the things which he had learned from the apos-
tles, which the Church also hands down,
and which alone are true.''* To these things 5
all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also
those who, down to the present time, have suc-
ceeded Polycarp," who was a much more trust-
worthy and certain witness of the truth than
Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the here-
tics.^'^ He also was in Rome in the time of
Anicetus " and caused many to turn away from
the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of
God, proclaiming that he had received from
the apostles this one and only system of truth
which has been transmitted by the Church.
And there are those that heard from him 6
that John, the disciple of the Lord, going
to bathe in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus with-
in, ran out of the bath-house without bathing,
crying, 'Let us flee, lest even the bath fall,
because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth,
is within.' ^- And Polycarp himself, when 7
Marcion once met him ^■' and said, ' Know-
est " thou us ? ' replied, ' I know the first born
of Satan.' Such caution did the apostles and
their disciples exercise that they might not even
converse with any of those who perverted the
truth ; as Paul also said, ' A man that is a
heretic, after the first and second admonition,
century was as a channel of apostolic tradition. He does not com-
pare with Ignatius for vigor and originality of thought, and yet he
was one of the most deeply venerated characters of the early Church,
his noble piety, his relation to John and other disciples of the Lord,
and finally his glorious martyrdom, contributing to make him such.
Upon Polycarp, see especially Lightfoot's edition of Ignatius and
Polycarp, and the article of Salmon, in Smith and Wace's Diet, of
Christ. Biog.
'^ The church of Smyrna (situated in Asia Minor) was one of
the "seven churches of Asia," and is mentioned in Rev. i. ii;
ii. 8-II.
^ On his age and the date of his death, see chap. 15, note 2. A
full account of his martyrdom is given in the epistle of the church
of Smyrna, quoted in the next chapter.
* Irenaeus emphasizes here, as was his wont, the importance of
tradition in determining true doctrine. Compare also Eusebius'
words in chap. 21.
'■> Of these successors of Polycarp we know nothing.
If KaKoyi'Mixoi'inv. ^^ See above, note 2.
1= See above, Bk. III. chap. 28, where the same story is related.
13 Marcion came to Rome about 135 a.d., but how long he re-
mained there we do not know. Polycarp's words show the great
abhorrence in which he was held by the Church. He was considered
by many the most dangerous of all the heretics, for he propagated
his errors and secured many followers among all classes. Marcion's
conduct in this case is very significant when compared with that of
the Gnostics. He tried everywhere to gain support and to make
friends with the Church, that he might introduce his reforms within
it; while the genuine Gnostics, on the contrary, held themselves
aloof from the Church, in pride and in a feeling of superiority. Poly-
carp in his Epistle to the Philippians, chap. 7, shows the same
severity toward false teachers, and even uses the same expression,
" first born of Satan," perhaps referring to Marcion himself; but
see below, note 16.
i-* eTnyii'outTKei;, which is the reading of the great majority of the
MSS., and is adopted by Schwegler, Laemmer, Harnack, Lightfoot,
and others. Three MSS., supported by Nicephorus, Rufinus, and
the Latin version of Irenaeus, read k-myLi'iacTKe, and this is adopted
by Valesius, Heinichen, Stroth, Closs, and Cruse.
1 88
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 14.
reject ; knowing that he that is such is subverted,
and sinneth, being condemned of himself.' ^^
8 There is also a very powerful epistle of Poly-
carp written to the PhiUppians/" from which
those that wish to do so, and that are concerned
for their own salvation, may learn the character
of his faith and the preaching of the
9 truth." Such is the account of Irenseus. But
Polycarp, in his above-mentioned epistle to
the Philippians, which is still extant, has made
use of certain testimonies drawn from the First
Epistle of Peter."
10 And when Antoninus, called Pius, had
completed the twenty-second year of his
reign,'*^ Marcus Aurelius Verus, his son, who was
also called Antoninus, succeeded him, together
with his brother Lucius. ^^
CHAPTER XV.
Uiider Verus^ Polycarp with Others suffered
Martyrdom at Smyrna.
1 At this time,^ when the greatest persecu-
tions were exciting Asia, Polycarp ended his
*5 Titus iii. 10, 11.
1" Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians is still extant, and is the
only work of Polycarp which we have. (The Greek text is given in
all editions of the apostolic Fathers, and with especially valuable
notes and discussions in Zahn's Ignatius von Antiochicn, and in
Lightfoot's Ig)iatius and Polycarp, II. p. 897 sqq. ; an English
translation is contained in the latter edition, and also in the Ante-
Nicenc Fathers, Vol. I. p. 31-36.) The date of its composition it
is very difficult to determine. It must have been written after the
death of Ignatius (chap. 9), and yet soon after, as Polycarp does
not seem to know all the circumstances attending that event (see
chap. 13). Its date therefore depends upon the date of the martyr-
dom of Ignatius, which is a very difficult question, not yet fully
decided. The attack upon false teachers reminds us of RIarcion,
and contains traits which seem to imply that Polycarp had Marcion
in his mind at the time of writing. If this be so, the epistle was
written as late as 135 a.d., which puts the date of Ignatius' death
much later than the traditional date (on the date of Ignatius' death,
see above, Bk. III. chap. 36, note 4). The genuineness of Polycarp's
epistle has been sharply disputed — chiefly on account of its testimony
10 the Ignatian epistles in chap. 13. Others, while acknowledging
its genuineness as a whole, have regarded chap. 13 as an interpola-
tion. But the external testimony for its genuineness is very strong,
beginning with Irenaeus, and the epistle itself is just what we should
expect from such a man as Polycarp. There is no good reason
therefore to doubt its genuineness nor the genuineness of chap. 13,
the rejection of which is quite arbitrary. The genuineness of the
whole has been ably defended both by Zahn and by Lightfoot, and
may be regarded as definitely established.
1' Polycarp in his epistle makes constant use of the First Epistle
of Peter, with which he was evidently very familiar, though it is
remarkable that he nowhere mentions Peter as its author (cf. Bk.
III. chap. 3, note i).
'" Antoninus Pius reigned from July 2, 138, to March 7, 161.
''•' Both were adopted sons of Antoninus Pius. See above, chap.
12, note 3.
' Marcus Aurelius Verus. See below, p. 390, note.
^ Polycarp's martyrdom occurred in Smyrna, not during the
reign of Marcus Aurelius, as Eusebius says, but during the reign of
Antoninus Pius, between 154 and 156 (probably in 155). This has
been proved by Waddington in his Menioire sur la Chronologic de
la vie dii rheteiir /Elitts Aristide (in Mem. de I'acad. des
ziiscrifit. et belles Icttrcs, Tom. XXVI., part II., 1867, p. 232 sq. ;
see, also, his Pastes des provinces Asiatiques, 1S72, p. 219 sq.),
and the date is now almost imiversally accepted (for example, by
Kenan, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Lightfoot, Harnack, &c.). But the
ChroH. of Eusebius seems to put the martyrdom in the seventh year
of Marcus Aurelius (166-167 a.d.), and this is the date given by
Jerome and others, who ba,sed their chronology upon Eusebius, and
was commonly accepted until Waddington proved it false. Light-
foot, however, shows that Eu.scbius did not mean to assign Poly-
carp's death to the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, but that he
meant only to place it in the reign of that emperor, and did not pre-
tend to fi.\ the year, How he made the mistake of assigning it to
hfe by martyrdom. But I consider it most im-
portant that his death, a written account of
which is still extant, should be recorded in
this history. There is a letter, written in 2
the name of the church over which he him-
self presided,^ to the parishes in Pontus,'* which
relates the events that befell him, in the fol-
lowing words : " The church of God which 3
dwelleth at Smyrna to the church of God
which dwelleth in Philomelium,^ and to all the
parishes of the holy catholic Church^ in every
place ; mercy and peace and love from God the
Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied.
We write'' unto you, brethren, an account of
what happened to those that suffered martyrdom
and to the blessed Polycarp, who put an end
to the persecution, having, as it were, sealed it
the wrong emperor we do not know, but knowing Eusebius' common
confusion of the various emperors that bore the name of Antonine,
we are not surprised at his error at this point. For the best and
most recent discussion of this whole subject, see Lightfoot's Igtia-
tius, I. p. 629 sq. Since Waddington published his researches,
Wieseler (in his Christenver/olgungcn, 1878, p. 34-87) and Keim
(Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1878, p. 92-133) have ventured to
dispute his conclusions and to advocate the old date (167), but their
arguments are worthless, and have been completely refuted by
Lightfoot {,ibid. p. 655 sq.).
3 I.e. the church of Smyrna. This letter (the greater part of
which Eusebius gives in this chapter) is still extant in four Greek
MSS., and also in a poor Latin version which is preserved in
numerous MSS. The letter has been published a number of times,
most recently by Zahn (in Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn's Patrnvi
Ap. opera, 11. p. 132 sq.), and by Lightfoot (in his Apostolic
Fathers, Part II.; St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp,^. 947 sq.).
Lightfoot gives the Greek text with full notes and an English trans-
lation, and to his edition the reader is referred for fuller particulars
on the whole subject.
* Pontus was the northeast province of Asia Minor, bordering
on the Black Sea. What led Eusebius to suppose that this epistle
was addressed to the church in Pontus, we do not know. The letter
is addressed to the church in Philomalium, and that city was not in
Pontus (according to Lightfoot, ibid. II. p. 948). Valesius sug-
gests that we should read woirra loixov instead of IIoi'toi', but the
latter reading is confirmed both by Rufinus and by the Syriac as
well as by all the Greek MSS. I am inclined to think that Euse-
bius may have read hastily and erroneously in the heading of the
letter IIoi'TOf instead of ira-VTo. -ro-nov, and, not knowing that Philo-
melium was not in Pontus, never thought that his reading was incor-
rect. Such careless mistakes are by no means uncommon, even in
these days, and, having once written Pontus, it is easy enough to
suppose that nothing would occur to call his attention to his mis-
take, and of course no copyist would think of making a correction.
'' Philomelium, according to Lightfoot {ibid. p. 947), was an im-
portant city in Phrygia Paroreios, not far from Pisidian Antioch.
^' T)J9 ayi'as KaSoAtKij? e/cxATja-ia;. The phrase" Catholic Church"
occurs first in Ignatius' Ep. ad Sinyr., chap. 8, and there the word
" catholic" evidently has the common and early meaning, " univer-
sal " (see Lightfoot's Ignatius, I. p. 398 sqq.). In later usage (so in
Tcrtullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Fragment)
it has the meaning " orthodox," as opposed to heretical and schis-
matical bodies. In the present epistle it occurs four times (§§ 3, 15,
39, below, and in a passage not quoted in this chapter), and at least
the first three times with the later meaning, and consequently, in
all probability, it has the same meaning the fourth time also. (Light-
foot, it is true, contends that it has the earlier meaning, " universal,"
in the first, second and fourth cases; but in at least the first two that
sense of the word produces most decided tautology, and is therefore
to be rejected.) The occurrence of the word in the later sense has
caused some critics to deny the genuineness of the epistle; but its
genuineness is too well established to admit of doubt, and it must be
granted that it is by no means impossible that a word which was
used at the end of the second century (in Alexandria, in Rome,
and in Carthage) with a certain meaning may have been employed
in the same sense a generation earlier. On the other hand it is \ws-
sible, as suggested by some, that the word " Catholic " itself is an
interpolation; for it is just such a word that would most easily slip
into a document, through the inadvertency of copyists, at a later
time, when the phrase " Catholic Church " had become current.
Lightfoot {ibid. p. 605 sq.) maintains the genuineness of the word
(taking it in its earlier sense) in all but the third instance, where he
substitutes ayia; upon what seem to me insufficient groimds.
' €7pdi/(o/nt>', the epistolary aorist, referring, not to another epis-
tle, but to the one which follows, the writer putting himself in
thought in the position of tho.se who are reading the letter. See
Lightfoot's note on Gal. vi. 11, in his Commentary on that epistle.
IV. 15.]
THE AlARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP.
189
4 by his martyrdom." After these words, be-
fore giving the account of Polycarp, they
record the events which befell the rest of the
martyrs, and describe the great firmness which
they exhibited in the midst of their pains. For
they say that the bystanders were struck with
amazement when they saw them lacerated with
scourges even to the innermost veins and arter-
ies, so that the hidden inward parts of the body,
both their bowels and their members, were ex-
posed to view ; and then laid upon sea- shells and
certain pointed spits, and subjected to every
species of punishment and of torture, and
5 finally thrown as food to wild beasts. And
they record that the most noble Germani-
cus ^ especially distinguished himself, overcoming
by the grace of God the fear of bodily death im-
planted by nature. When indeed the proconsul ^
wished to persuade him, and urged his youth,
and besought him, as he was very young and
vigorous, to take compassion on himself, he did
not hesitate, but eagerly lured the beast toward
himself, all but compelling and irritating him, in
order that he might the sooner be freed
6 from their unrighteous and lawless life. Af-
ter his glorious death the whole multitude,
marveling at the bravery of the God-beloved
martyr and at the fortitude of the whole race of
Christians, began to cry out suddenly, " Away
with the atheists ; ^" let Polycarp be sought."
7 And when a very great tumult arose in con-
sequence of the cries, a certain Phrygian,
Quintus ^^ by name, who was newly come from
Phrygia, seeing the beasts and the additional
tortures, was smitten with cowardice and
8 gave up the attainment of salvation. But
the above-mentioned epistle shows that he,
too hastily and without proper discretion, had
rushed forward with others to the tribunal, but
when seized had furnished a clear proof to
all, that it is not right for such persons rashly
and recklessly to expose themselves to danger.
Thus did matters turn out in connection with
them.
9 But the most admirable Polycarp, when
he first heard of these things, continued
undisturbed, preserved a quiet and unshaken
mind, and determined to remain in the city.
But Ijeing persuaded by his friends who en-
treated and exhorted him to retire secretly,
* Of Germanicus we know only what is told us in this epistle.
" This proconsul was Statins Quadratus, as we are told in the
latter part of this epistle, in a passage which Eusebius does not
quote. Upon his dates, see the discussions of the date of Polycarp's
martyrdom mentioned in note 2, above.
10 Compare Justin Martyr's Apol. I. 6; TertuUian's Apol. 10,
&c. ; and see chap. 7, note 20, above.
'I Of Quintus we know only what is told us in this epistle. It is
significant that he was a Phrygian, for the Phrygians were proverbi-
ally excitable and fanatical, and it was among them that Montanism
took its rise. The conduct of Polycarp, who avoided death as long
as he could without dishonor, was in great contrast to this; and it
is noticeable that the Smyrnseans condemn Quintus' hasty and ill-
considered action, and that Eusebius echoes their judgment (see
above, p. 8) .
he went out to a farm not far distant from the
city and abode there with a few companions,
night and day doing nothing but wrestle with
the Lord in prayer, beseeching and implor-
ing, and asking peace for the churches through-
out the whole world. For this was always
his custom. And three days before his 10
arrest, while he was praying, he saw in a
vision at night the pillow under his head sud-
denly seized by fire and consumed ; and upon
this awakening he immediately interpreted the
vision to those that were present, almost fore-
telling that which was about to happen, and
declaring plainly to those that were with him
that it would be necessary for him for Christ's
sake to die by fire.
Then, as those who were seeking him 11
pushed the search with vigor, they say that
he was again constrained by the solicitude and
love of the brethren to go to another farm.
Thither his pursuers came after no long time, and
seized two of the servants there, and tortured one
of them for the purpose of learning from
him Polycarp's hiding-place. And coming 12
late in the evening, they found him lying
in an upper room, whence he might have gone
to another house, but he would not, saying,
" The will of God be done." And when 13
he learned that they were present, as the
account says, he went down and spoke to them
with a very cheerful and gentle countenance, so
that those who did not already know the man
thought that they beheld a miracle when they ob-
served his advanced age and the gravity and
firmness of his bearing, and they marveled that
so much effort should be made to capture a
man like him.
But he did not hesitate, but immediately 14
gave orders that a table should be spread
for them. Then he invited them to partake of
a bounteous meal, and asked of them one hour
that he might pray undisturbed. And when they
had given permission, he stood up and prayed,
being full of the grace of the Lord, so that
those who were present and heard him praying
were amazed, and many of them now repented
that such a venerable and godly old man was
about to be put to death. In addition to 15
these things the narrative concerning him
contains the following account : " But when at
length he had brought his prayer to an end, after
remembering all that had ever come into contact
with him, small and great, famous and obscure,
and the whole catholic Church throughout the
world, the hour of departure being come, they put
him upon an ass and brought him to the city,
it being a great Sabbath.^^ And he was met by
12 2a^(3aTou ^eyaAovi. " The great Sabbath " in the Christian
Church, at least from the time of Chrysostom on, was the Saturday
between Good-Friday and Easter. But so far as we know, there are
no examples of that use of the phrase earlier than Chrysostom's
I go
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. IS.
Herod/^ the captain of police," and by his
father Nicetes, who took him into their carriage,
and sitting beside him endeavored to persuade
him, saying, ' For what harm is there in saying.
Lord Csesar, and sacrificing and saving your
16 hfe ? ' He at first did not answer ; but when
they persisted, he said, ' I am not going to
do what you advise me.' And when they failed to
persuade him, they uttered dreadful words, and
thrust him down with violence, so that as he
descended from the carriage he lacerated his
shin. But without turning round, he went on
his way promptly and rapidly, as if nothing had
happened to him, and was taken to the
17 stadium. But there was such a tumult in
the stadium that not many heard a voice
from heaven, which came to Polycarp as he was
entering the place : * Be strong, Polycarp, and
play the man.' '^ And no one saw the speaker,
but many of our people heard the voice.
18 And when he was led forward, there was a
great tumult, as they heard that Polycarp
was taken. Finally, when he came up, the pro-
consul asked if he were Polycarp. And when he
confessed that he was, he endeavored to per-
suade him to deny, saying, ' Have regard for
thine age,' and other like things, which it is
19 their custom to say : ' Swear by the genius
of Ceesar ; ^^ repent and say, Away with the
Atheists.' But Polycarp, looking with dignified
countenance upon the whole crowd that was
gathered in the stadium, waved his hand to them,
and groaned, and raising his eyes toward
20 heaven, said, ' Away with the Atheists.' But
when the magistrate pressed him, and said,
' Swear, and I will release thee ; revile Christ,'
Polycarp said, ' Fourscore and six years ^" have I
been serving him, and he hath done me no
wrong ; how then can I blaspheme my king who
saved me ? '
21 " But when he again persisted, and said,
' Swear by the genius of Caesar,' Polycarp
replied, ' If thou vainly supposest that I will
swear by the genius of Caesar, as thou sayest.
time. Lightfoot points out that, in the present instance, it is not
"The great Sabbath" (to iLiya. 'Xa.^^aTov) , but only " A great Sab-
bath"; and therefore, in the present instance, any great Sabbath
might be meant, — that is, any Sabbath which coincided with a fes-
tival or other marked day in the Jewish calendar. Lightfoot gives
strong reasons for assuming that the traditional day of Polycarp's
death (Kcb. 23) is correct, and that the Sabbath referred to here was
a great Sabbath because it coincided with the Feast of Purim (see
Lightfoot, il'id. \. p. 660 sqq. and 690 sqq.)-
'•* Of Herod and Nicetes we know only what is told us in this
epistle. The latter was not an uncommon name in Smyrna, as we
learn from inscriptions (see Lightfoot, ibid. II. p. 958).
'* i\pi)va.p\oi; (.see Lightfoot, ibid. p. 955).
"■ Compare Joshua i. 6, 7, 9, and Deut. 1. 7, 23.
1" t\\v Kaiaapoi; rvxriv. This oath was invented under Julius
Caesar, .and continued under his successors. The oath was repudi-
ated by the Christians, who regarded the " genius" of the emperor
as a false God, and therefore the taking of the oath a species of
idolatry. It was consequently employed very commonly by the
magistrates as a test in times of persecution (of. TertuUian, Apol.
32; Origen, Contra Ccls. VIll. 65, and many other passages).
" Sec above, chap. 14, note 5. Whether the eighty-six years arc
to be reckoned from Polycarp's birth, or' from tlie time of his conver-
sion or baptism, we cannot tell. At the same time, inasmuch as he
speaks of serving Christ, for eighty-six years, not God, I am in-
feigning to be ignorant who I am, hear plainly :
I am a Christian. But if thou desirest to
learn the doctrine of Christianity, assign
a day and hear.' The proconsul said, ' Per- 22
suade the people.' But Polycarp said, 'As
for thee, I thought thee worthy of an explana-
tion ; for we have been taught to render to
princes and authorities ordained by God the
honor that is due,'** so long as it does not injure
us ; ^* but as for these, I do not esteem them the
proper persons to whom to make my de-
fense.''° But the proconsul said, 'I have 23
wild beasts ; I will throw thee to them unless
thou repent.' But he said, ' Call them ; for re-
pentance from better to worse is a change we
cannot make. But it is a noble thing to
turn from wickedness to righteousness.' But 24
he again said to him, * If thou despisest the
wild beasts, I will cause thee to be consumed
by fire, unless thou repent.' But Polycarp said,
' Thou threatenest a fire which burneth for an
hour, and after a little is quenched ; for thou
knowest not the fire of the future judgment and
of the eternal punishment which is reserved for
the impious. But why dost thou delay?
Do what thou wilt.' Saying these and 25
other words besides, he was filled with
courage and joy, and his face was suffused with
grace, so that not only was he not terrified and
dismayed by the words that were spoken to him,
but, on the contrary, the proconsul was amazed,
and sent his herald to proclaim three times in
the midst of the stadium : ' Polycarp hath
confessed that he is a Christian.' And when 26
this was proclaimed by the herald, the whole
multitude, both of Gentiles and of Jews,-' who
dwelt in Smyrna, cried out with ungovernable
wrath and with a great shout, ' This is the teacher
of Asia, the father of the Christians, the over-
thrower of our gods, who teacheth many
not to sacrifice nor to worship.' When they 27
had said this, they cried out and asked the
Asiarch Philip " to let a lion loose upon Poly-
carp. But he said that it was not lawful for
clined to think that he is reckoning from the time of his conversion
or baptism, which may well be if we suppose him to have been
baptized in early boyhood.
'* Sec Rom. xiii. i sq., i Pet. ii. 13 sq.
t" TtM'Jt' . . . T))!/ /liij ^ka-nTovtsixv r|;ua?. Compare Pseudo-Igna-
tius, ad Antioch. 11, and Mart. /gnat. Rojii. 6 (in both of which
are foynd the words kv ot? aKi'i'Sui/os r\ inroTayii) .
2" The proconsul made quite a concession here. He would have
been glad to have Polycarp quiet the multitude if he could. Poly-
carp was not reckless and foolish in refusing to make the attempt,
for he knew it would fail, and he preferred to retain his dignity and
not compromise himself by appearing to ask for mercy.
2' Tlie Jews appear very frequently as leading spirits in the
persecution of Christians. The persecution under Nero was doubt-
less due to their instigation (see Bk. II. chap. 25, note 4). Com-
pare also TertuUian, Scorp. 10, and Eusebius, //. E. V. 16. That the
Jews were numerous in Smyrna has been shown by Lightfoot, ibid.
p. 966.
22 " The Asiarch was the head of the Commune Asise, the con-
federation of the principal cities of the Roman province of Asia. As
such, he was the ' chief priest' of Asia, and president of the games"
(Lightfoot, ibid. p. 967; on p. 987 ff. of the same volume, Lightfoot
discusses the Asiarchate at considerable length). The Asiarch
Philip mentioned here was a Trallian, as we learn from a statement
tow;ird the close of the epistle, which Eusebius does not quote;
IV. 15.]
THE MARTYRDOM OF rOLVCARP.
191
him, since he had closed the games. Then they
thought fit to cry out with one accord that
28 Polycarp should be burned ahve. For it
was necessary that the vision should be ful-
filled which had been shown him concerning his
pillow, when he saw it burning while he was
praying, and turned and said prophetically to
the faithful that were with him, ' I must
29 needs be burned alive.' These things were
done with great speed, — more quickly than
they were said, — the crowds immediately col-
lecting from the workshops and baths timber
and fagots, the Jews being especially zeal-
30 ous in the work, as is their wont. But when
the pile was ready, taking off all his upper
garments, and loosing his girdle, he attempted
also to remove his shoes, although he had never
before done this, because of the effort which each
of the faithful alvvays made to touch his skin
first ; for he had been treated with all honor on
account of his virtuous life even before his
31 gray hairs came. Forthwith then the mate-
rials prepared for the pile were placed about
him ; and as they were also about to nail him to
the stake,^ he said, ' Leave me thus ; for he
who hath given me strength to endure the fire,
Avill also grant me strength to remain in the fire
unmoved without being secured by you with
nails.' So they did not nail him, but bound
32 him. And he, with his hands behind him,
and bound like a noble ram taken from a
great flock, an acceptable burnt-offering unto
33 God omnipotent, said, ' Father of thy be-
loved and blessed Son'^ Jesus Christ, through
whom we have received the knowledge of thee,
the God of angels and of powers and of the whole
creation and of the entire race of the righteous
who live in thy presence, I bless thee that thou
hast deemed me worthy of this day and hour,
that I might receive a portion in the number of
the martyrs, in the cup of Christ, unto resurrec-
tion of eternal life,-^ both of soul and of body,
in the immortality of the Holy Spirit.
34 Among these may I be received before
thee this day, in a rich and acceptable sac-
rifice, as thou, the faithful and true God, hast
beforehand prepared and revealed, and
35 hast fulfilled. Wherefore I praise thee also
for everything ; I bless thee, I glorify thee,
through the eternal high priest, Jesus Christ, thy
beloved Son, through whom, with him, in the
Holy Spirit, be glory unto thee, both now
36 and for the ages to come. Amen.' When
he had offered up his Amen and had fin-
ished his prayer, the firemen lighted the fire ;
Lightfoot identifies him with a person named in various Trallian
inscriptions.
'^ The Greek reads simply npocrriXovv aiiTOf.
'■' TTaiSo? not vtoO. -n-ai? commonly conveys the meaning of
servant rather than son, although in this passage it is evidently used
in the latter sense. Its use in connection with Christ was in later
times dropped as Arianistic in its tendency. -" Compare John v. 29.
and as a great flame blazed out, we, to whom it
was given to see, saw a wonder, and we were
preserved that we might relate what ha])-
pened to the others. For the fire presented 37
the appearance of a vault, like the sail of a
vessel filled by the wind, and made a wall about
the body of the martyr,-" and it was in the midst
not like flesh burning, but like gold and silver
refined in a furnace. For we perceived such a
fragrant odor, as of the fumes of frankin-
cense or of some other precious spices. So 38
at length the lawless men, when they saw
that the body could not be consumed by the
fire, commanded an executioner'^ to ap-
proach and pierce him with the sword. And 39
when he had done this there came forth a
quantity of blood-** so that it extinguished the
fire ; and the whole crowd mai-veled that there
should be such a difference between the unbe-
lievers and the elect, of whom this man also was
one, the most wonderful teacher in our times,
apostolic and prophetic, who was bishop of the
catholic Church ^'' in Smyrna. For every word
which came from his mouth was accom-
plished and will be accomplished. But the 40
jealous and envious Evil One, the adversary
of the race of the righteous, when he saw the
greatness of his martyrdom, and his blameless
life from the beginning, and when he saw him
crowned with the crown of immortality and bear-
ing off an incontestable prize, took care that not
even his body should be taken away by us, al-
though many desired to do it and to have
communion with his holy flesh. Accord- 41
ingly certain ones secretly suggested to
Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of
Alce,^ that he should plead with the magistrate
-''• It is not necessary to dispute the truthfulness of the report in
this and the next sentences on the ground that the events recorded
are miraculous in their nature, and therefore cannot have happened.
Natural causes may easily have produced some such phenomena as
the writers describe, and which they of course regarded as miraculous.
Lightfoot refers to a number of similar cases, Vol. I. p. 598 ft'.
Compare also Harnack in the Zeitschriftfur Kirche7igesch. II.
p. 291 ff.
-' KojuK^eKTopa. It was the common business of the Coit/ectores
to dispatch such wild beasts as had not been killed outright during
the combat in the arena. See Lightfoot, p. 974.
28 Before the words "a quantity of blood" are found in all the
Greek MSS. of the epistle the words irepicmpa. Kai, " a dove and."
It seems probable that these words did not belong to the original
text, but that they were, as many critics believe, an unintentional
corruption of some other phrase, or that they were, as Lightfoot
thinks, a deliberate interpolation by a late editor (see Lightfoot, II.
974 ff. and I. 627 ff.). No argument, therefore, against the honesty
of Eusebius can be drawn from his omission of the words.
-'■> See above, note 6. That the word Ka^oAtKij? is used here in
the later sense of" orthodox," as opposed to heretical and schismat-
ical bodies, can be questioned by no one. Lightfoot, however, reads
at this point ayias instead of KaSoAt/c^; in his edition of the epistle.
It is true that he has some MS. support, but the MSS. and versions
of Eusebius are unanimous in favor of the latter word, and Light-
foot's grounds for making the change seem to be quite insufficient.
If any change is to be made, the word should be dropped out en-
tirely, as suggested by the note already referred to.
311 All, or nearly all, the MSS. of Eusebius re.id AiAKi;?, and
that reading is adopted by Stephanus, Valesius (in his text) , Schweg-
ler, Laemmer, Heinichen, and Cruse. On the otherhand, the MSS.
of the epistle itself all support the form '.\Akj)9 (or 'AAk^5, 'EAicei?,
as it appears respectively in two MSS.), and Lightfoot accepts this
unhesitatingly as the original form of the word, and it is adopted by
many editors of Eusebius (Valesius, in his notes, Stroth, Zimmer-
192
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. IS.
not to give up his body, 'lest,' it was said, ' tliey
should abandon the crucified One and begin to
worship this man.' ^^ They said these things at
the suggestion and impulse of the Jews, who also
watched as we were about to take it from the
fire, not knowing that we shall never be able
either to forsake Christ, who suffered for the
salvation of the whole world of those that
42 are saved, or to worship any other. For
we worship him who is the Son of God, but
the martyrs, as disciples and imitators of the
Lord, we love as they deserve on account of
their matchless affection for their own king and
teacher. May we also be made partakers
43 and fellow-disciples with them. The cen-
turion, therefore, when he saw the conten-
tiousness exhibited by the Jews, placed him in
the midst and burned him, as was their custom.
And so we afterwards gathered up his bones,
which were more valuable than precious stones
and more to be esteemed than gold, and
44 laid them in a suitable place. There the
Lord will permit us to come together as we
are able, in gladness and joy to celebrate the
birthday of his martyrdom,"- for the commemo-
ration of those who have already fought and for
the training and preparation of those who
45 shall hereafter do the same. Such are the
events that befell the blessed Polycarp, who
suffered martyrdom in Smyrna with the eleven '^
mann, Burton, and Closs). Dalce is an otherwise unknown name,
while Alee, though rare, is a good Greek name, and is once con-
nected with Smyrna in an inscription. Moreover, we learn from
Ignatius, ad Smyr. 13, and ad Folyc. VIII., that Alee was a well-
known Christian in Smyrna at the time Ignatius wrote his epistles.
The use of the name at this point shows that its possessor was or
had been a prominent character in the church of Smyrna, and the
identification of the two seems to me beyond all reasonable doubt
(see, also, Lightfoot, I. 353; II. 325 and 978). That Eusebius,
however, wrote Alee is not so certain. In fact, in view of the exter-
nal testimony, it might be regarded as quite as likely that he, by a
mistake, wrote Dalce, as that some copyist afterwards committed
the error. Still, the name Alee must have been to Eusebius, with
his remarkable memory, familiar from Ignatius' epistles, and hence
his mistaking it for another word seems a little strange. But
whether Eusebius himself wrote Dalce or Alee, believing the latter
to be the correct form, the form which he should have written, I
have ventured to adopt it in my translation.
21 This shows that the martyrs were highly venerated even at
this early date, as was indeed most natural, and as is acknowledged
by the writers themselves just below. But it does not show that the
Christians already worshiped or venerated their relics as they did
in later centuries. The heathen, in their own paganism, might
easily conclude from the Christians' tender care of and reverence for
the martyrs' relics that they also worshiped them.
•" This is, so far as I am aware, the earliest notice of the annual
celebration of the day of a martyr's death, a practice which early
became so common in the Church. The next reference to the cus-
tom is in Tertullian's dc Corona, 3 (cf. also Scorp. 15). .So natural
a practice, however, and one which was .soon afterward universal,
need not surprise us at this early date (see Ducange, Natalis, and
Bingh.im, Ant. XIII. 9. 5, XX. 7. 2).
*< The m.ijority of the MSS. read SwSeica toD iv 'S.ixvpvji /xaprv-
pqo-ai'TO?, which, however, is quite ungrammatical as it stands in
the sentence, and cannot be accepted. Heinichen reads SuiSeKa toi-
fv K.T.\., changing the genitive of the m.ijority of the MSS. to an
accusative, but like them, as also like Rufinus, making twelve mar-
tyrs besides Polycarp. But the MSS. of the epistle itself read &i»?:i-
(caTos iv 2(i. napTvpijira?, thus making only eleven martyrs in addi-
tion to Polycarp, and it cannot be doubted that this idiomatic Greek
construction is the original. In view of that fact, I am constrained
to re.ad with V.alesius, Schwcgler, and Zahn (in his note on this pas-
sage in his edition of the epistle), &ui&eKaTov iv 2«. /oioprup^irrai'Tre,
translating literally, " suffered martyrdom with those from Phila-
delphia, the twelfth": or, as 1 have rendered it freely in the text,
" suffered martyrdom with the eleven from rhilailel)ihia." It is,
of course, possible that Eusebius himself substituted the 6w6e/co for
from Philadelphia, This one man is remembered
more than the others by all, so that even by the
heathen he is talked about in every place."
Of such an end was the admirable and 46
apostolic Polycarp deemed worthy, as re-
corded by the brethren of the church of Smyrna
in their epistle which we have mentioned. In
the same volume ^^ concerning him are subjoined
also other martyrdoms which took place in the
same city, Smyrna, about the same period of time
with Polycarp's martyrdom. Among them also
Metrodorus, who appears to have been a prose-
lyte of the Marcionitic sect, suffered death by
fire. A celebrated martyr of those times was 47
a certain man named Pionius. Those who
desire to know his several confessions, and the
boldness of his speech, and his apologies in
behalf of the faith before the people and the
rulers, and his instructive addresses, and, more-
over, his greetings to those who had yielded to
temptation in the persecution, and the words of
encouragement which he addressed to the breth-
ren who came to visit him in prison, and the
tortures which he endured in addition, and be-
sides these the sufferings and the nailings, and
his firmness on the pile, and his death after all
the extraordinary trials,^' — those we refer to
that epistle which has been given in the Mar-
tyrdoms of the Ancients,^" collected by us, and
which contains a very full account of him.
And there are also records extant of others 48
that suffered martyrdom in Pergamus, a city
the 5w6eKaTos, but the variations and inconsistencies in the MSS. at
this point make it more probable that the change crept in later, and
that Eusebius agreed with his original in making Polycarp the
twelfth martyr, not the thirteenth. Of these eleven only Germani-
cus is mentioned in this epistle, and who the others were we do not
know. They cannot have been persons of prominence, or Polycarp's
martyrdom would not so completely have overshadowed theirs.
'■^* ypatjyj]. These other accounts were not given in the epistle of
the Smyrnaeans, but were doubtless appended to that epistle in the
MS. which Eusebius used. The accounts referred to are not found
in any of our MSS. of the epistle, but there is published in Ruinart's
Ada Martyritm Sincera, p. i88 sq., a narrative in Latin of the
martyrdom of a certain Pionius and of a certain Marcionist Metro-
dorus, as well as of others, which appears to be substantially the
same as the document which Eusebius knew in the original Greek,
and which he refers to here. The account bears all the marks of
genuineness, and may be regarded as trustworthy, at least in the
main points. But Eusebius has fallen into a serious chronological
blunder in making these other martyrs contemporaries of Polycarp.
We learn from a notice in the document given by Ruinart that Pio-
nius, Metrodorus, and the others were put to death during the per-
secution of Decius, in 250 a.d., and this date is confirmed by exter-
nal evidence. The document which Eusebius used may not have
contained the distinct chronological notice which is now found in it,
or ICusebius may have overlooked it, and finding the narrative given
in his MS. in close connection with the account of Polycarp's mar-
tyrdom, he may have jumped hastily to the conclusion that both ac-
counts relate to the same period of time. Or, as Lightfoot suggests,
in the heading of the document there may have stood the words
r) a.\n'r) 77epio6o9 toO xpovov (a peculiar phrase, which Eusebius re-
peats) indicating (as the words might indicate) that the events took
place at the same season of the year, while Eusebius interpreted
them to mean the same period of tune. Upon these Ads, and upon
Metrodorus and Pionius, see Lightfoot, I. p. 622 sqq. 1'he Li/i- 0/
Polycarp, which purports to have been written by Pionius, is mani-
festly spurious and entirely untrustworthy, and belongs to the latter
part of the fourth century. The true Pionius, therefore, who suffered
under Decius, and the Pseudo-Pionius who wrote that Life are to
be sharply distinguished (see Lightfoot, I. p. 626 sqq.).
•■'•'' This is an excellent summary of Pionius' sufferings, as re-
corded in the extant Acts referred to in the previous note.
■"' This is the CoUcction cf Ancient Martyrdoms, which is no
longi.r extant, but which is referred to by Eusebius more than once
in his History. For particulars in regard to it, see above, p. 30 sq.
IV. 1 6.]
THE MARTYRDOM OF JUSTIN.
193
of Asia, — of Carpus and Papylus, and a woman
named Agathonice, who, after many and illus-
trious testimonies, gloriously ended their lives."
CHAPTER XVI.
Justin the Philosopher preaches the Word of
Christ in Rome and suffers Martyrdom.
1 Abou r this time ^ Justin, who was men-
tioned by us just above," after he had ad-
dressed a second work in behalf of our doc-
trines to the rulers already named,^ was crowned
with divine martyrdom,'' in consequence of a plot
laid against him by Crescens,^ a philosopher
3' A detailed account of the martyrdoms of Carpus, Papylus, and
Agathonice is extant in numerous AISS., and has been published
more than once. It has, however, long been recognized as spurious
and entirely untrustworthy. But in 1881 Aube published in the
Revue Ar.ckcejlogiipie (Dec, p. 348 sq.) a shorter form of the Acts
of these martyrs, which he h.ad discovered in a Greek MS. in the
Paris Library. There is no reason to doubt that these Acts are genu-
ine and, in the main, quite trustworthy. The longer Acts assign the
death of these martyrs to the reign of Decius, and they have always
been regarded as suffering during that persecution. Aube, in pub-
lishing his newly discovered document, still accepted the old date;
but Zahn, upon the basis of the document which he had also seen,
remarked in his Tatiaii's Diatessaron (p. 279) that Eusebius was
correct in assigning these martyrdoms to the reign of Marcus Aure-
lius, and Lightfoot (I. p. 625) stated his belief that they are to be
assigned either to tliat reign or to the reign of Septimius Severus.
In 1888 Harnack {Textennd Untcrs. III. 4) published a new edi-
tion of the Acts from the same MS. which Aube had used, accompa-
nying the te.vt with valuable notes and with a careful discussion of
the age of the document. He has proved beyond all doubt that these
martyrs were put to death during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and
that the shorter document which we have contains a genuine account
related by an eye-witness. These are evidently the Acts which Eu-
set)ius had before him. In the spurious account Carpus is called a
bishop, and Papylus a deacon. But in the shorter account they are
simply Christians, and Papylus informs the judge that he is a citizen
of Thyatira.
Eusebius apparently did not include the account of these martyrs
in his collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, and Harnack concludes
from that that he found in it something that did not please him, viz.
the fanaticism of Agathonice, who rashly and needlessly rushes to
martyrdom, and the approval of her conduct expressed by the author
of the Acts. We are reminded of the conduct of the Phrygian Quin-
tus mentioned in the epistle of the Smyrnaeans but in that epistle
such conduct is condemned.
1 That is, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Ve-
rus, 161-169 A.D. Inasmuch as Eusebius is certainly in error in
ascribing the death of Polycarp, recorded in the previous chapter, to
the reign of Marcus Aurelius (see note 2 on that chapter), the fact
that he here connects Justin's death with that reign furnishes no evi-
dence that it really occurred then; but we have other good reasons
for supposing that it did (see below, note 4).
2 In chap. II.
3 Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, whom he mentioned at the
close of chap. 14, and the events of whose reign he is now ostensibly
recording. But in regard to this supposed second apology addressed
to them, see chap. 18, note 3.
* That Justin died a martyr's death is the universal tradition of
antiquity, which is crystallized in his name. Irenaeus {Adv. HcBr.
I. 28. i) is the first to mention it, but does so casually, as a fact
well known. The only account of his martyrdom which we have is
contained in the Acta Marty rii Jicstiiii Philosophi (Galland. I.
707 sq.), which, although belonging to a later age (probably the
third century), yet bear every evidence of containing a compara-
tively truthful account of Justin's death. According to these Acts,
Justin, with six companions, was brought before Rusticus, prefect
of Rome, and by him condemned to death, upon his refusal to sacri-
fice to the gods. The date of his martyrdom is very difficult to de-
termine. There are two lines of tradition, one of which puts his
death under Antoninus Pius, the other under Marcus Aurelius. The
latter has the most in its favor; and if we are to accept the report of
the Acta Justini (which can be doubted least of all at this point),
his death took place under Rusticus, who, as we know, became pre-
fect of Rome in 163. Upon the date of Justin's death, see especially
Holland, in Smith and Wace, III. p. 562 sq.
^ Of this cynic philosopher Crescens we know only what is told
us by Justin and Tatian, and thev paint his character in the blackest
colors. Doubtless there was sufficient ground for their accusations;
but we must remember that we have his portrait only from the pen
of his bitterest enemies. In the Acta Crescens is not mentioned in
VOL. I. '
who emulated the life and manners of the
Cynics, whose name he bore. After Justin had
frequently refuted him in public discussions he
won by his martyrdom the prize of victory, dying
in behalf of the truth which he preached.
And he himself, a man most learned in the 2
truth, in his Apology already referred to"
clearly predicts how this was about to happen
to him, although it had not yet occurred.
His words are as follows : ^ " I, too,* there- 3
fore, expect to be plotted against and put
in the stocks^ by some one of those whom I
have named, or perhaps by Crescens, that unphilo-
sophical and vainglorious man. For the man is
not worthy to be called a philosopher who pub-
licly bears witness against those concerning
whom he knows nothing, declaring, for the sake
of captivating and pleasing the multitude, that
the Christians are atheistical and impious.^"
Doing this he errs greatly. For if he assails 4
us without having read the teachings of
Christ, he is thoroughly depraved, and is much
worse than the illiterate, who often guard against
discussing and bearing false witness about mat-
ters which they do not understand. And if he
has read them and does not understand the
majesty that is in them, or, understanding it,
does these things in order that he may not be
suspected of being an adherent, he is far more
base and totally depraved, being enslaved to
vulgar applause and irrational fear. For I 5
would have you know that when I proposed
certain questions of the sort and asked him in
regard to them, I learned and proved that he
indeed knows nothing. And to show that I
speak the truth I am ready, if these disputations
have not been reported to you, to discuss the
questions again in your presence. And this
indeed would be an act worthy of an
emperor. But if my questions and his 6
connection with the death of Justin, — an omission which is hardly
to be explained, except upon the supposition of historical truthful-
ness. Eusebius' report here seems to rest solely upon the testimony l
of Tatian (see §§ 8 and 9, below), but the passage of Tatian which
he cites does not prove his point; it simply proves that Crescens
plotted against Justin; whether his plotting was successful is not
stated, and the contrary seems rather to be implied (see note 13,
below).
" Harnack thinks that Eusebius at this point wishes to convey
the false impression that he quotes from the second apology, whereas
he really quotes from what was to him the first, as can be seen from
chap. 17. But such conduct upon the part of Eusebius would be
quite inexplicable (at the beginning of the very next chapter, e.g.,
he refers to this same apology as the first), and it is far better to
refer the words kv rrj hi(n\kuj\xii-f\ 'ATroAoYia to chap. 13 sq., where
the apology is quoted repeatedly.
' Justin, Apol. II. 3.
8 Kayu) ovv. In the previous chapter (quoted by Eusebius in the
next chapter) Justin has been speaking of the martyrdom of various
Christians, and now goes on to express his expectation that he, too,
will soon suffer death. ,
" fuAio h'Tivayr^vdi. Compare Acts xvii. 24, and see Otto s note
on this passage, in his edition of Justin's Apology {Corpus Apol.
Christ. I. p. 204). He says: ^.^Aoi' erat triincus foramina ha-
hois, quihics pedes capthiorum intvtitebantur, lit securius in
carcere servarettiur ant tormetiiis vexareittur (" a fvAoi- was
a block, with holes in which the feet of captives were put, in order
that they might be kept more securely in prison, or might be al-
flicted with tortures "). . .
1" This accusation was very commonly made against the Chris-
tians in the second century. See above, chap. 7, note 20.
194
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 16.
answers have been made known to you, it is
obvious to you that he knows nothing about
our affairs ; or if he knows, but does not dare
to speak because of those who hear him, he
shows himself to be, as I have already said,"
not a philosopher, but a vainglorious man, who
indeed does not even regard that most admira-
ble saying of Socrates." ^- These are the words
of Justin.
7 And that he met his death as he had
predicted that he would, in consequence
of the machinations of Crescens, is stated by
Tatian,^^ a man who early in life lectured upon
" I" § 3> above.
1- This saying of Socrates is given by Justin as follows: aW
oOti ye npo t^5 dAj)^eia? Tin/.>)Te'o? ai'ijp, " a man must not be hon-
ored before the truth " (from Plato's Republic, Bk. XO- It is hard
to say why Eusebius should have omitted it. Perhaps it was so
well known that he did not think it necessary to repeat it, taking for
granted that the connection would suggest the same to every reader,
or it is possible that the omission is the fault of a copyist, not of
Eusebius himself.
'3 On Tatian and his writings, see below, chap. 29.
Eusebius has been accused by Dembowski, Zahn, Harnack, and
others of practicing deception at this point. The passage from
Tatian's Oraiio ad Gmcos, which Eusebius appeals to for testi-
mony in regard to Justin's death, and which he quotes just below, is
not given by him exactly as it stands in the extant text of the Oratio.
In the latter we read, " He who taught that death should be despised
was himself so greatly in fear of it, that he endeavored to inflict death
as if it were an evil upon Justin, and indeed on me also, because
when preaching he had proved that the philosophers were gluttons
and impostors." The difference between the two texts consists in
the substitution of the word \xiya.Kw for the words Ka'i e^e lu?; and
it is claimed that this alteration was intentionally made by Eusebius.
As the text stands in Tatian, the passage is far from proving that
Justin's death was caused by the machinations of Crescens, for
Tatian puts himself on a level with Justin as the object of these
machinations, and of course since they did not succeed in his case,
there is no reason to suppose that they succeeded in Justin's case.
It is claimed, therefore, that Justin, realizing this, struck out the
Kol €/ne (u5 in order to permit the reader to gather from the passage
that Tatian meant to imply that the plots of Crescens were success-
ful, and resulted in Justin's death. Before accepting this conclusion,
however, it may be well to realize exactly what is involved in it.
The change does not consist merely in the omission of the words
Kal i\Li w9, but in the substitution for them of the word fieyaAo). It
cannot, therefore, be said that Eusebius only omitted some words,
satisfying his conscience that there was no great harm in that; who-
ever made the change, if he did it intentionally, directly falsified the
text, and substituted the other word for the sake of covering up his
alteration; that is, he committed an act of deceit of the worst kind,
and deliberately took steps to conceal his act. Certainly such con-
duct is not in accord with Eusebius' general character, so far as we
can ascertain it from his writings. Even Zahn and Harnack, who
accuse him of intentional deception here, yet speak of his general
conscientiousness, and treat this alteration as one which Eusebius
allowed himself to make while, at the same time, his " conscientious-
ness did not permit him even this time to change truth completely
into untruth." I'ut if he could allow himself to make so deliberate
an alteration, and then cover the change by inserting another word,
there is little cause to speak of " conscientiousness " in connection
with the matter; if he could do that, his conscience would certainly
permit him to make any false quotations, however great, so long as
he thought he could escape detection. But few would care to accuse
Eusebius of possessing such a character. Certainly if he possessed
it, we should find clearer traces of it than we do in his History,
where we have the opportunity to control a large portion of his state-
ments on an immense variety of subjects. Moreover, for such a grave
act of deception as Eusebius is supposed to have committed, some
adequate ground must have existed. But what ground was there.''
The only motive suggested is that he desired to appear to possess
specific knowledge about the manner of Justin's death, when in fact
he did not possess it. It is not maintained that he had any larger
motive, such as reconciling apparent contradictions in eacred records,
or shedding an added luster upon the Christian religion, for neither
of these purposes has any relation to the statement in regard to
Crescens' connection with Justin's death. Solely then for the sake
of producing the impression that he knew more about Justin's death
than he did, he must have m.ade the change. But certainly when
we realize how frequently Eusebius directly avows his ignorance on
points far more important (to his mind) than this (e.g., the dates of
the Jerusalem bishops, which he might so easily have invented), and
when we consider how sober his history is in comparison with the
accounts of the majority of his contemporaries, both Pagan and
Christian, how few fables he introduces, how seldom he embellishes
the narratives which he finds related in his sources with imaginary
the sciences of the Greeks and won no little
fame in them, and who has left a great many
figments of his own brain, — when, in fact, no such instances can be
found elsewhere, although, writing in the age he did, and for the
public for whom he did, he might have invented so many stones
without fear of detection, as his successors during the ancient and
middle ages were seldom loath to do, — when all this is taken into
consideration, we should hesitate long before we accuse Eusebius of
such deceptive conduct as is implied in the intentional alteration ot
Tatian's account at this point. It has been quite the custom to accuse
Eusebius of intentional deviations from the truth here and there, but
it must be remembered that he was either honest or dishonest, and
if he ever deliberately and intentionally deviated from the truth, his
general character for truthfulness is gone, unless the deviation were
only in some exceptional case, where the pressure to misrepresenta-
tion was unusually strong, under which circumstances his reputation
for veracity in general might not be seriously impaired. But the
present instance is not such an one, and if he was false here on so
little provocation, why should we think his character such as to
guarantee truthfulness in any place where falsehood might be more
desirable?
The fact is, however, that the grounds upon which the accusa-
tion against Eusebius is based are very slender. Nothing but the
strongest evidence should lead us to conclude that such a writer as
he practiced such wilful deception for reasons absolutely trivial.
But when we realize how little is known of the actual state of the
text of Tatian's Oratio at the time Eusebius wrote, we must ac-
knowledge that to base an accusation on a difference between the
text of the History and the extant MSS. of the Oratio is at least a
little hasty. An examination of the latest critical edition of Tatian's
Oratio (that of Schwartz, in Gebhardt, and Harnack's Texte mid
UntersucJi. IV. i) shows us that in a number of instances the
testimony of the MSS. of Eusebius is accepted over against that of
the few extant MSS. of Tatian. The MS. of Tatian which Eusebius
used was therefore admittedly different at a number of points from
all our existing MSS. of "Tatian. It is consequently not at all
impossible that the MS. which he used read /jie7aA<u instead of xal
iu.k (u?. It happens, indeed, to be a fact that our three MSS. of
Tatian all present variations at this very point (one reads xai ifxi
(i)?, another, Kai i\i.i oioi', another, xai e/je oS?), showing that the
archetype, whatever it was, either offered difficulties to the copyists,
or else was partially illegible, and hence required conjectural emen-
dations or additions. It will be noticed that the closing verb of this
sentence is in the singular, so that the mention of both Justin and
Tatian in the beginning of the sentence may well have seemed to
some copyist quite incongruous, and it is not difficult to suppose
that under such circumstances, the text at this point being in any
case obscure or mutilated, such a copyist permitted himself to make
an alteration which was very clever and at the same time did away
with all the trouble. Textual critics will certainly find no difficulty
in such an assumption. The MSS. of Tatian are undoubtedly
nearer the original form at this point than those of Eusebius, but
we have no good grounds for supposing that Eusebius did not follow
the MS. which lay before him.
The question as to Eusebius' interpretation of the passage as he
found it is quite a different one. It contains no direct statement
that Justin met his death in con.sequence of the plots of Crescens;
and finding no mention of such a fact in the Acts of Martyrdom of
Justin, we may dismiss it as unhistorical and refuse to accept Euse-
bius' interpretation of Tatian's words. To say, however, that Euse-
bius intentionally misinterpreted those words is quite unwarranted.
He found in Justin's work an expressed expectation that he would
meet his death in this way, and he foimd in Tatian's work the
direct statement that Crescens did plot Justin's death as the latter
had predicted he would. There was nothing more natural than to
conclude that Tatian meant to imply that Crescens had succeeded,
for why did he otherwise mention the matter at all, Eusebius might
well say, looking at the matter from his point of view, as an historian
interested at that moment in the fact of Justin's death. He does
undoubtedly show carelessness and lack of penetration in interpret-
ing the passage as he does; but if he had been aware of the defect
in the evidence he presents, and had yet wished deceitfully to assert
the fact as a fact, he would certainly have omitted the passage alto-
gether, or he would have bolstered it up with the statement that
other writers confirmed his conclusion, — a statement which only a
thoroughly and genuinely honest man would have scrupled to make.
Finally, to return to the original charge of falsification of the sources,
if he realized that the text of Tatian, with the xai t/uf lu?, did not
establish Justin's death at the instigation of Crescens, he nuist have
realized at the same time that his altered text, while it might imply
it, certainly did not absolutely prove it, and hence he would not
have left his conclusion, which he stated as a demonstrated fact, to
rest upon so slender a basis, when he might so easily have adduced
any number of oral traditions in confirmation of it. If he were dis-
honest enough to alter the text, he would not have hesitated to state
in general terms that the fact is " also supported by tradition." We
conclude, finally, that he read the passage as we now find it in the
MSS. of his History, and that his interpretation of the passage,
while false, was not intentionally so.
The att.acks upon Eusebius which have been already referred to
are to be foimd in Dembowski's Quellen der cliristiichen Apolo-
g;etik, I. p. 60; Zahn's Tatian's PiatessaroH, p. 275 sc]., and Har-
nack's Ueberlieferungder griech. Apologeten, p. 141 sq. Semisch
{Justin der Martyrer, I. 53) takes for granted that Eusebius fol-
IV. 17.]
MARTYRS MENTIONED BY JUSTIN.
195
monuments of himself in his writings. He
records this fact in his work against the
Greeks, where he writes as follows : " " And that
most admirable Justin declared with truth that
the aforesaid persons were like robbers."
8 Then, after making some remarks about
the philosophers, he continues as follows : ^^
"Crescens, indeed, who made his nest in the
great city, surpassed all in his unnatural lust, and
was wholly devoted to the love of money.
9 And he who taught that death should be
despised, was himself so greatly in fear of it
that he endeavored to inflict death, as if it were
a great evil, upon Justin, because the latter, when
preaching the truth, had proved that the phi-
losophers were gluttons and impostors." And
such was the cause of Justin's martyrdom.
CHAPTER XVII.
The Afarfyrs whom yvstin mentions in his
Own Work.
1 The same man, before his conflict, men-
tions in his first Apology ^others that suffered
martyrdom before him, and most fittingly records
the following events. He writes thus : ^
2 "A certain woman lived with a dissolute
husband ; she herself, too, having formerly
been of the same character. But when she
came to the knowledge of the teachings of
Christ, she became temperate, and endeavored
to persuade her husband hkewise to be temper-
ate, repeating the teachings, and declaring the
punishment in eternal fire which shall come
upon those who do not live temperately
3 and conformably to right reason. But he,
continuing in the same excesses, alienated
his wife by his conduct. For she finally, think-
ing it wrong to live as a wife with a man who,
contrary to the law of nature and right, sought
every possible means of pleasure, desired
4 to be divorced from him. And when she
was earnestly entreated by her friends, who
counseled her still to remain with him, on the
ground that her husband might some time give
hope of amendment, she did violence to
5 herself and remained. But when her hus-
band had gone to Alexandria, and was re-
ported to be conducting himself still worse, she
lowed the text of Tatian which lay before him, but does not attempt
to prove it.
1^ Tatian, Oratio ad Grcpcos, c. 18. It is quite probable that
Tatian is here appealing, not to a written work of Justin's, but to a
statement which he had himself heard him make. See Harnack's
Uebc-rlieferiing der gricch. A/>o!ogeicii, p. 130. Harnack is un-
doubtedly correct in maintaining that Tatian's Oratio is quite inde-
pendent of Justin's Apology and other writings.
'•'• Ibid. chap. 19.
' Eusebius in this chapter quotes what we now know as Justin's
second Apology, calling it his first. It is plain that the two were
but one to him. See chap. 18, note 3.
- Justin, Apol. II. 2.
— in order that she might not, by continuing in
wedlock, and by sharing his board and bed,
become a partaker in his lawlessness and im-
piety— gave him what we'' call a bill of
divorce and left him. But her noble and 6
excellent husband, — instead of rejoicing,
as he ought to have done, that she had given up
those actions which she had formerly recklessly
committed with the servants and hirelings, when
she delighted in drunkenness and in every vice,
and that she desired him likewise to give them
up, — when she had gone from him contrary to
his wish, brought an accusation concerning
her, declaring that she was a Christian. And 7
she petitioned you, the emperor, that she
might be permitted first to set her affairs in
order, and afterwards, after the settlement of
her affairs, to make her defense against the
accusation. And this you granted. But 8
he who had once been her husband, being
no longer able to prosecute her, directed his
attacks against a certain Ptolema^us,^ who had
been her teacher in the doctrines of Christianity,
and whom Urbicius^ had punished. Against
him he proceeded in the following manner :
" He persuaded a centurion who was his 9
friend to cast Ptolemjsus into prison, and to
take him and ask him this only : whether he
were a Christian? And when Ptolemaeus, who
was a lover of truth, and not of a deceitful and
false disposition, confessed that he was a Chris-
tian, the centurion bound him and punished
him for a long time in the prison. And finally, 10
when the man was brought before Urbi-
cius he was likewise asked this question only :
whether he were a Christian ? And again, con-
scious of the benefits which he enjoyed through
the teaching of Christ, he confessed his
schooling in divine virtue. For whoever 11
denies that he is a Christian, either denies be-
cause he despises Christianity, or he avoids con-
fession because he is conscious that he is unworthy
and an alien to it ; neither of which is the
case with the true Christian. And when 12
Urbicius commanded that he be led away
to punishment, a certain Lucius,^ who was also
a Christian, seeing judgment so unjustly passed,
3 Our authorities are divided between lijuii' and viklv, but I have
followed Heinichen in adopting the former, which has much stronger
MS. support, and which is in itself at least as natural as the latter.
* Of this Ptolemsus we know only what is told us here. 1 ille-
mont, Ruinart, and others have fixed the date of his martyrdom as
i66, or thereabouts. But inasmuch as the second Apology is now
commonly regarded as an appendix to, or as a part of, the first, and
was at any rate written during the reign of Antoninus Puis, the mar-
tyrdom of Ptolemc-Eus must have taken place considerably earlier
than the date indicated, in fact in all probability as early as 152 (at
about which time the Apology was probably written). We learn
from the opening of the second Apology that the martyrdoms which
are recorded in the second chapter, and the account of which *-usc-
bius here quotes, happened very shortly before the composition of
the Apology (x^f? 5e ica'i Trpoirji', " yesterday and the day before ).
•'■■ •Ovp36/cio9, as all the MSS. of Eusebius give the name. In
Justin the form ■Olip^lKo? occurs, which is a direct transcription of
the Latin Urbicits.
« Of this Lucius we know only what is told us here.
O 2
196
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 17.
said to Urbicius, * Why have you punished this
man who is not an adulterer, nor a fornicator,
nor a murderer, nor a thief, nor a robber, nor
has been convicted of committing any crime at
all, but has confessed that he bears the name of
Christian? You do not judge, O Urbicius, in
a manner befitting the Emperor Pius, or the
philosophical son' of Caesar, or the sacred
13 senate.' And without making any other
reply, he said to Lucius, * Thou also seem-
est to me to be such an one.' And when Lucius
said, ' Certainly,' he again commanded that he
too should be led away to punishment. But he
professed his thanks, for he was liberated, he
added, from such wicked rulers and was going
to the good Father and King, God. And still a
third having come forward was condemned to be
punished."
14 To this, Justin fittingly and consistently
adds the words which we quoted above,*
saying, " I, too, therefore expect to be plotted
against by some one of those whom I have
named," ficc.'*
CHAPTER XVIIL
TJie Works of Justin which have come down
to us.
\ This writer has left us a great many mon-
uments of a mind educated and practiced
in divine things, which are replete with profitable
matter of every kind. To them we shall refer
the studious, noting as we proceed those
2 that have come to our knowledge.^ There
is a certain discourse ^ of his in defense of
our doctrine addressed to Antoninus surnamed
the Pious, and to his sons, and to the Roman
senate. Another work contains his second
Apology^ in behalf of our faith, which he of-
^ Marcus Aurelius. See above, chap. 12, note 2.
• In chap. 16, § 3.
" Justin, Apol. II. 3. These words, in Justin's Apology, follow
immediately the long account quoted just above.
' Eusebius apparently cites here only the works which he had
himself seen, which accounts for his omission of the work against
Marcion mentioned above, in chap. 11.
' This Apology is the genuine work of Justin, and is still extant
in two late and very faulty MSS., in which it is divided into two,
and the parts are commonly known as Justin's First and Second
Apologies, though they were originally one. The best edition of
the original is that of Otto in his Corpus Apologetarum Christi-
anorum ; English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ^ Vol. I.
p. i6j ff. Eusebius, in his Chronicle, places the date of its com-
position as 141, but most critics are now agreed in putting it ten or
more years later; it must, however, have been written before the
death of Antoninus Pius (161). See Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 716.
3 Eusebius here, as in chap. 16 above, ascribes to Justin a second
Apology, from which, however, he nowhere quotes. From Euse-
bius the tradition has come down through history that Justin wrote
two apologies, and the tradition seems to be confirmed by the exist-
ing MSS. of Justin, which give two. P.ut Eusebius' two cannot
have corresponded to the present two; for, from chap. 8. §§ 16 and
17, it is plain that to Eusebius our two formed one complete work.
And it is plain, too, from internal evidence (as is now very generally
admitted; Wieseler's arguments against this, in his Christenverfol-
giirigen, p. 104 ff., are not sound), that the two were originally one,
our second forming simply a supplement to the first. What, then,
has become of the second Apology mentioned by Eusebius? There
is much difference of opinion upon this point. But the explanation
fered to him who was the successor of the em-
peror mentioned and who bore the same name,
Antoninus Verus, the one whose times we
are now recording. Also another work 3
against the Greeks,* in which he discourses
at length upon most of the questions at issue
between us and the Greek philosophers, and dis-
cusses the nature of demons. It is not necessary
for me to add any of these things here.
And still another work of his against the 4
Greeks has come down to us, to which he
gave the title Refutation. And besides these
another. On the Sovereignty of God,^ which he
establishes not only from our Scriptures,
but also from the books of the Greeks. Still 5
further, a work entitled Psaltes,^ and another
disputation On the Soul, in which, after pro-
pounding various questions concerning the prob-
lem under discussion, he gives the opinions of
the Greek philosophers, promising to refute it,
and to present his own view in another
work. He composed also a dialogue against 6
the Jews,' which he held in the city of
Ephesus with Trypho, a most distinguished
man among the Hebrews of that day. In it
he shows how the divine grace urged him on
to the doctrine of the faith, and with what earn-
estness he had formerly pursued philosophical
studies, and how ardent a search he had
made for the truth.* And he records of the 7
Jews in the same work, that they were plot-
ting against the teaching of Christ, asserting the
given by Harnack (p. 171 ff.) seems the most probable one. Ac-
cording to his theory, the Apology of Athenagoras (of whom none
of the leathers, except Methodius and Philip of Side, seem to have
had any knowledge) was attributed to Justin by a copyist of the
third century, — who altered the address .so as to throw it into Jus-
tin's time, — and as such it came into the h.inds of Eusebius, who
mentions it among the works of Justin. That he does not quote
from it may be due to the fact that it contained nothing suited to his
purpose, or it is possible that he had some suspicions about it; the
last, however, is not probable, as he nowhere hints at them. That
some uncertainty, however, seemed to hang about the work is evi-
dent. The erasure of the name of Athenagoras and the substitution
of Justin's name accounts for the almost total disappearance of the
former from history. This Apology and his treatise on the resurrec-
tion first appear again under his name in the eleventh century, and
exist now in seventeen MSS. (see Schafi", II. 731). '1 he traditional
second Apology of Justin having thus after the eleventh century
disappeared, his one genuine Apology was divided by later copyists,
so that we still have apparently two .separate apologies.
* This and the following were possibly genuine works of Justin;
but, as they are no longer extant, it is impossible to speak with
certainty. The two extant works. Discourse to the Creeks {Oratio
mi Gmcos) and Hortatory Address to the Greeks {Cohortatio
ad Gnecos), which are translated in \\\it Ante-Nicene Fathers, I.
p. 27T-289, are to be regarded as the productions of later writers,
and are not to be identified with the two mentioned here (although
Otto defends them both, and Semisch defends the latter).
•'■' We have no reason to think that this work was not genuine,
but it is no longer extant, and therefore certainty in the matter is
impossible. It is not to he identified with the exlant work upon the
same subject (translated in the Ante-Niceiie Fathers, 1. p. 2C/0-293),
which is the production of a later writer.
''• This work and the following have entirely disappeared, but
were genuine productions of Justin, for all that we know to the con-
trary.
■ This is a genuine work of Justin, and is still extant (translated
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 194-270). Its exact date is
uncertain, but it was written after the Apology (to which it refers in
chap. 120), and during the reign of Antoninus Pius (137-161).
Of Trypho, whom Kusehius char.acterizes as " a most distin-
guished man among the Hebrews," we know nothing beyond what
we can gather from the dialogue Itself.
' See Dial. chap. 2 sq.
I
IV. 21.]
THE WRITINGS OF JUSTIN.
197
same things against Trypho : " Not only did you
not repent of the wickedness which you had
committed, but you selected at that time chosen
men, and you seht them out from Jerusalem
through all the land, to announce that the god-
less heresy of the Christians had made its ap-
pearance, and to accuse them of those things
which all that are ignorant of us say against us,
so that you become the causes not only of your
own injustice, but also of all other men's."'"'
8 He writes also that even down to his time
prophetic gifts shone in the Church.^'' And
he mentions the Apocalypse of John, saying dis-
tinctly that it was the apostle's.^^ He also refers
to certain prophetic declarations, and accuses
Trypho on the ground that the Jews had cut
them out of the Scripture.-'^ A great many other
works of his are still in the hands of many
9 of the brethren.^^ And the discourses of
the man were thought so worthy of study
even by the ancients, that Irenseus quotes his
words : for instance, in the fourth book of his
work Against Heresies, where he writes as fol-
lows : " " And Justin well says in his work against
Marcion, that he would not have believed the
Lord himself if he had preached another God be-
sides the Creator" ; and again in the fifth book
of the same work he says : ^^ " And Justin well
said that before the coming of the Lord Satan
never dared to blaspheme God,^" because he
did not yet know his condemnation."
10 These things I have deemed it necessary
to say for the sake of stimulating the studi-
ous to peruse his works with diligence. So much
concerning him.
CHAPTER XIX.
The Rulers of the Churches of Rome and Alex-
andria during the Reign of Verus.
In the eighth year of the above-mentioned
reign ^ Soter ^ succeeded Anicetus ^ as bishop of
'■> ibid. chap. 17. n ibid. chap. 81.
10 ibid. chap. 82. 12 il)id. chap. 71.
'' Of the many extant and non-extant works attributed to Justin
by tradition, all, or the most of them (except the seven mentioned
by Eusebius, and the work Against Marcion, quoted by Irenaeus,
— see just below, — and the Syntagma Contra omnes Hier.), are
the productions of later writers.
'* Irenaeus, Adv. HcEr. IV. 6. 2.
>" Irenaeus, V. 26. 2. Irenaeus does not name the work which
he quotes here, and the quotation occurs in none of Justin's extant
works, but the context and the sense of the quotation itself seem to
point to the same work. Against Marcion.
I'j Epiphanius expresses the same thought in his Hier. XXXIX. g.
' The reign of ISIarcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus mentioned at
the end of chap. 14.
' As was remarked in chap. 11, note 18, Anicetus held office
until 165 or 167, i.e. possibly until the seventh year of Marcus
Aurelius. The date therefore given here for the accession of Soter
is at least a year out of the way. The Armenian Chron. puts his
accession in the 236th Olympiad, i.e. the fourth to the seventh year
of this reign, while the version of Jerome puts it in the ninth year.
Froin Bk. V. chap, i we learn that he held office eight years, and
this is the figure given by both versions of the Chron. In chap.
23 Eusebius quotes from a letter of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth,
addressed to Soter, in which he remarks that the Corinthian church
the church of Rome, after the latter had held
office eleven years in all. But when Celadion *
had presided over the church of Alexandria for
fourteen years he was succeeded by Agrippinus.*
CHAPTER XX.
The Rulers of the Church of Antioch.
At that time also in the church of Antioch,
Theophilus ^ was well known as the si.xth from
the apostles. For Cornelius," who succeeded
Hero,^ was the fourth, and after him Eros,^ the
fifth in order, had held the office of bishop.
CHAPTER XXI.
The Ecclesiastical Writers that flourished in
Those Days.
At that time there flourished in the Church
Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone
before,^ and Dionysius,^ bishop of Corinth, and
another bishop, Pinytus of Crete,^ and besides
have been reading on the Lord's day an epistle written to them by
Soter. It was during his episcopate that Montanus labored in Asia
Pilinor, and the anonymous author of the work called Pra-destinatus
(written in the middle of the fifth century) states that Soter wrote a
treatise against him which was answered by Tertullian, but there
seems to be no foundation for the tradition. Two spurious epistles
and several decretals have been falsely ascribed to him.
5 On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18.
* On Celadion, see above, chap. 11, note 17.
^ Of Agrippinus we know only what Eusebius tells us here and
in Bk. v. chap. 9, where he says that he held office twelve years.
Jerome's version of the Chron. agrees as to the duration of his
episcopate, but puts his accession in the sixth year of Marcus Aure-
lius. In the Armenian version a curious mistake occurs in connec-
tion with his name. Under the ninth year of Marcus Aurelius are
found the words, Romanorum ecclcsice XII. episcopus consiitutus
est Agrippitius annis IX., and then Eleutherus (under the thir-
teenth year of the same ruler) is made the thirteenth bishop, while
Victor, his successor, is not numbered, and Zephyrinus, the succes-
sor of the latter, is made number fourteen. It is of course plain
enough that the transcriber by an oversight read Romanorum
ecclesice 'ms\.&aA oi Alexandrinie ecclesice, and then having given
Soter just above as the eleventh bishop, he felt compelled to make
Agrippinus the twelfth, and hence reversed the two numbers, nine
and twelve, given in connection with Agrippinus, and made him the
twelfth bishop, ruling nine years, instead of the ninth bishop, ruling
twelve years. He then found himself obliged to make Eleutherus
the thirteenth, but brought the list back into proper shape again by
omitting to number Victor as the fourteenth. It is hard to under-
stand how a copyist could commit such a flagrant error and not
discover it when he found himself subsequently led into difficulty
by it. It simply shows with what carelessness the work of trans-
lation or of transcription was done. As a result of the mistake no
ninth bishop of Alexandria is mentioned, though the proper interval
of twelve years remains between the death of Celadion and the acces-
sion of Julian.
^ On Theophilus and his writings, see chap. 24.
' Of the life and character of Cornelius and Eros we know noth-
ing. The Chron. of Eusebius puts the accession of Cornelius into
the twelfth year of Trajan (128 A.D.), and the accession of his
successor Eros into the fifth year of Antoninus Pius (142). These
dates, however, are quite unreliable, and we have no means of cor-
recting them (see Harnack's Zeit des Ignatius, p. 12 sqq.). The-
ophilus, the successor of Eros, we have reason to think became
bishop about the middle of Marcus Aurelius' reign, and hence the
Chron., which puts his accession into the ninth year of that reign,
(169 A.D.) cannot be far out of the way. This gives us the approxi-
mate date for the death of Eros.
3 On Hero, see above, Bk. III. chap. 36, note 23.
* On Eros, see note 2.
1 On Hegesippus' life and writings, see the next chapter. He
has been already mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 23; Bk. III. chaps. 11,
16, 20, 32; and Bk. IV. chap. 8.
- On the life and writings of Dionysius, see below, chap. 23.
^ On Pinytus, see below, chap. 23, note 14.
198
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 21.
these, Philip/ and ApoUnarius/ and Melito," and
Musanus/ and Modestus/ and finally, Irenseus.''
* On Philip, see below, chap. 25.
* On Apolinarius, see below, chap. 27.
•J On Melito, see chap. 26.
' On Musanus, see chap. 28.
8 On Modestus, see chap. 25.
' Irenseus was born in Asia Minor, probably between the years
120 and 130. There is great uncertainty as to the date of his birth,
some bringing it down almost to the middle of the second century,
while Dodwell carried it back to the year 97 or 98. But these ex-
tremes are wild; and a careful examination of all the sources which
can throw any light on the subject leads to the conclusion adopted
by Lipsius, and stated above. In Asia Minor he was a pupil of
Polycarp (cf. the fragment of Irenaus' letter to Florinus, quoted by
Eusebius, Bk. V. ch,-ip. 20). The Moscow MS. of the MnrtyrinDi
Polycarpi stAie% that IrenEeus was in Rome at the time of Polycarp's
martyrdom (155 or 156 a.d.), and appeals for its authority to a state-
ment in Irena;us' own writings, which does not exist in .iny e.xtant
work, but may have been taken from an authentic work now lost
(cf. Gebhardt, in \k\^ Z c itsc hrift fit r die hist. Theologic, 1875, p. 362
sqq.). But whatever truth there maybe in the report, we find him, at
the time of the great persecution of Lyons and Vienne (described in
the next book, chap, i), a presbyter of the church at Lyons, and
carrying a letter from the confessors of that church to the bishop
Eleutherus of Rome (see Bk. V. chap. 4). After the death of
Pothinus, which took place in 177 (see Bk. \ . prtef. notes, and
chap. I, § 29), Irenseus became bishop of Lyons, according to Bk. V.
chap. 5. The exact date of his accession we do not know; but as
Pothinus died during the persecution, and Irenseus was still a pres-
byter after the close of the persecution in which he met his death, he
cannot have succeeded immediately. Since Irenaius, however, was,
according to Eusebius, Pothinus' next successor, no great length of
time can have elapsed between the death of the latter and the acces-
sion of the former. At the time of the paschal controversy, while
Victor was bishop of Rome, Irena:us was still bishop (according to
Bk. V. chap. 23). This was toward the close of the second century.
His death is ordinarily put in the year 202 or 203, on the assump-
tion that he suffered martyrdom under Septimius Severus. Jerome
is the first to call him a martyr, and that not in his dc vir. ill., but
in his Commetit. in Esaiam (chap. 64), which was written some
years later. It is quite possible that he confounded the Irenaeus in
question with another of the same name, who met his death in the
persecution of Diocletian. Gregory of Tours first gives us a de-
tailed account of the martyrdom, and in the Middle Ages Irena;us
always figured as a martyr. But all this has no weight at all, when
measured against the silence of Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius,
and all the earlier Fathers. Their silence must be accepted as con-
clusive evidence that he was not a martyr; and if he was not, there
is no reason for assigning his death to the year 202 or 203. As we
have no trace of him, however, subsequent to the time of the pas-
chal controversy, it is probable that he died, at the latest, soon after
the beginning of the third century.
IrenEeus was the most important of the polemical writers of an-
tiquity, and his works formed a storehouse from which all subsequent
heresiographers drew. He is quoted very frequently by Eusebius as
an authority for events which happened during the second century,
and is treated by him with the most profound respect as one of the
greatest writers of the early Church. Jerome devotes an unusually
long chapter of his dcjvir.ill. to him (chap. 35), but tells us nothing
that is not found in Eusebius' History. His greatest work, and the
only one now extant, is his'EA.eyxos kiI ai'aTpoTri) tt]<; xpevScai'vixov
yi/coo-ew?, which is commonly cited under the brief title np'oi; Wipe-
o-ei9, or Adz'ersiis Hicrescs (" Against Heresies"). It consists of
five books, and is extant only in a very ancient and literal Latin
translation; though the numerous extracts made from it by later
writers have preserved for us the original Greek of nearly the whole
of the first book and many fragments of the others. There are also
extant numerous fragments of an ancient Syriac version of the
work. It was written — or at least the third book was — while Eleu-
therus was bishop of Rome, i.e. between 174 and 189 (see Bk. III.
chap. 3, § 3, of the work itself). We are not able to fix the date of
its composition more ex.actly. The author's primary object was to
refute V.alentinianism (cf Bk. I. />r<if., and Bk. HI. fra-/.), but in
connection with that subject he t.akes occasion to say considerable
about other related heresies. The sources of this great work have
been carefully discussed by Lipsius, in his Quellenkritik dcs Epi-
fi/ianios, and in his Quellen der Hltcstrn Ketzergesckichte, and
by Harnack in his Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticis-
mus (see also the article by Lipsius mentioned below). Of the
other works of Ircna;us, many of which Eusebius refers to, only
fr.agments or bare titles have been preserved. Whether he ever
carried out his intention (stated in Ad7>. Ha-r. I. 27. 4, .ind HI.
12. 12) of writing a spcci.al work .against M.arcion, we cannot tell.
Kusebius mentions this intention in Bk. V. chap. 20; and in Bk. IV
chap. 25 he classes Irenjeus among the authors who had written
against Marcion. But we hear nothing of the existence of the work
Irom Iren.xus successors, and it is possible that Eusebius is think-
ing in chap. 25 only of the great work Adv. H<er. For a notice of
Jrcnaius epistle On Schism, addressed to RIastus, and the one On
SoveretfTtity, addressed to Florinus, see Bk. V. chap. 20 notes 2
and 3; and on his treatise On the Offdoad, see the same chapter
note 4. On his epistle to Victor in regard to the paschal dispute^
From them has come down to us in writing, the
sound and orthodox faith received from apos-
tolic tradition.'"
CHAPTER XXII.
Hegesippus and the Events which he mentions.
Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs ^ 1
which have come down to us has left a
most complete record of his own views. In
them he states that on a journey to Rome he
met a great many bishops, and that he received
the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear
what he says after making some remarks about
the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
His words are as follows : "And the church 2
of Corinth continued in the true faith until
Primus^ was bishop in Corinth. I conversed
with them on my way to Rome, and abode with
the Corinthians many days, during which we
were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.
And when I had come to Rome I remained 3
there until Anicetus,^ whose deacon was
see below, Bk. V. chap. 24, note 13. Other epistles upon the same
subject are referred to by Eusebius at the close of the same chapter
(see note 21 on that chapter). In Bk. V. chap. 26, Eusebius men-
tions four other works of Irenjeus (see notes on that chapter). In
addition to the works referred to by Eusebius, there are extant a
number of fragments which purport to be from other works of Ire-
na;us. Some of them are undoubtedly genuine, others not. Upon
these fragments and the works to which they belong, see Harvey's
edition of Irenjeus' works, II. p. 431 sq., and Lipsius in the Diet, cf
Christ. Biog. article Ircmeus, p. 265 sqq.
The best edition of Irenseus' works is that of Harvey (Cambridge,
1857, '" 2 vols.). In connection with this edition, see LooPs impor-
tant article on Ireniensliandscliri/tcn, in Kirchengcschiclitliclie
Studien, p. 1-93 (Leipzig, 1888). The literature on Irena;us is very
extensive (for a valuable list, see Schaff 's Ch. Hist. II. 746), but a
full and complete biography is greatly to be desired. Lipsius' arti-
cle, referred to just above, is especially valuable.
i^ iiiv Kat ei9 r\p.o~<i Trj<; aiToo'ToXLKrj^ 7rapa66a'eco5, rj ttj? vyiovs
TTtcTTetu? ^yypa(j>o^ Karrj^Oev opOoSo^ia. Compare chap. 14, § 4.
' The five books of Hegesippus, uTro/aoj/aaTa or Ulevioirs, are
unfortunately lost; but a few fragments are preserved by Eusebius,
and one by Photius, which have been collected by Routh, Rcl. Sac.
I. 205-219, and by Grabe, Sfiicilegium, II. 203-214. This work has
procured for him from some sources the title of the " Father of
Church History," but the title is misplaced, for the work appears to
luave been nothing more than a collection of reminiscences covering
ihe apostolic and post-apostolic ages, and drawn partly from written,
partly from oral sources, and in part from his own observation, and
quite without chronological order and historical completeness. We
know of no other works of his. Of Hegesippus himself we know
very little. He apparently wrote his work during the episcopate of
Eleutherus (175-189 A.D.), for he does not name his successor. How
old he was at that time we do not know, but he was very likely a
man past middle life, and hence was probably born early in the
second century. With this, his own statement in the passage quoted
by Eusebius, in chap. 8, that the deification of Antinous took place
in his own day is quite consistent. The words of Jerome {de vir.
ill. 22), who calls him a vicinns apostolicoruin tetiiporuiii, are
too indefinite to give us any light, even if they rest upon any
authority, as they prob.ably do not. The journey which is mentioned
in this chapter shows that his home must have been somewhere in
the East, and there is no reason to doubt that he was a Hebrew
Christian (see below, note 16).
= Of this Primus we know only what Hegesippus tells us here.
We do not know the exact date of his episcopate, but it must have
been at least in part synchronous with the episcopate of Pius of
Rome (sec chap. 11, note 14), for it was while Hegesippus was on
his way to Rome that he s.aw Primus; and since he remained in
Rome until the accession of Anicctus, he must have arrived there
while Pius, Anicetus' predecessor, was bishop, for having gone to
Rome on a visit, he can hardly have remained there a number of
years.
■'' The interpretation of this sentence is greatly disputed. _ The
Greek reads in all the MSS. yivap.tvo<i hi iv 'Puiu-jj SiaSox'r)i' eTroiij-
<T6.iir\v i^ixpi-i 'AnKJJToujand this reading is confirmed by the Syriac
IV. 22.]
HEGESIPPUS.
199
Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by
Sotcr, and he by Eleutherus. In every succes-
sion, and m every city that is held which is
preached by the law and the prophets and the
Lord."
4 The same author also describes the be-
ginnings of the heresies which arose in his
time, in the following words : " And after James
the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord
had also on the same account, Symeon, the son
of the Lord's uncle, Clopas,'* was appointed the
next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop
because he was a cousin of the Lord.
" Therefore,'*" they called the Church a virgin,
for it was not yet corrupted by vain dis-
5 courses. But Thebuthis,^ because he was not
version (according to Lightfoot). If these words be accepted as
anthentic, the only possible rendering seems to be the one which
has been adopted by many scholars: " Being in Rome, I composed
a catalogue of bishops down to Anicetus." This rendering is adopted
also by Lightfoot, who holds that the list of Hegesippus is repro-
duced by Epiphanius in his Panarium XXVII. 6 (see his essay in
The Academy, May 27, 1887, where this theory is broached, and
compare the writer's notice of it in Harnack's Theol. Lit. Zeitung
18S7, No. 18). But against this rendering it must be said, first, that
it is very difficult to translate the words hiahoxHV eTroirjo-aiarji', " I
composed a catalogue of bishops," for SiaSoxi? nowhere else, so far
as I am aware, means " catalogue," and nowhere else does the
expression SiaSoxr/i" Troteto-^at occur. Just below, the same word
signifies " succession," and this is its common meaning. Certainly,
if Hegesippus wished to say that he had composed a catalogue of
bishops, he could not have expressed himself more obscurely. In
the second place, if Hegesippus had really composed a catalogue
of bishops and referred to it here, how does it happen that Eusebius,
who is so concerned to ascertain the succession of bishops in all the
leading sees nowhere gives that catalogue, and nowhere even refers
to it. He does give Irenaeus' catalogue of the Roman bishops in
Bk. V. chap. 6, but gives no hint there that he knows anything of a
similar list composed bjr Hegesippus. In fact, it is very difficult to
think that Hegesippus, in this passage, can have meant to say that
he had composed a catalogue of bishops, and it is practically impos-
sible to believe that Eusebius can have understood him to mean that.
But the words hia.ho-)(r\v eTroirjcranTjv, if they can be made to mean
anything at all, can certainly be made to mean nothing else than
the composition of a catalogue, and hence it seems necessary to
make some correction in the text. It is significant that Rufinus at
this point reads pcrviaiisi ihi, which shows that he at least did not
understand Hegesippus to be speaking of a list of bishops. Rufinus'
rendering gives us a hint of what must have stood in the original
from which he drew, and so Savilius, upon the margin of his SiS.,
substituted for hio&oyy\v the word 5iaTpi(37ji', probably simply as a
conjecture, but possibly upon the authority of some other MS. now
lost. He has been followed by some editors, including Heinichen,
who prints the word Siarpt^jji' in the te.xt. Val. retains hiahoxr^v in
his text, but accepts Sta.Tpi./3);;' as the true reading, and so translates.
This reading is now very widely adopted", and it, or some other
word with the same meaning, in all probability stood in the original
text. In my notice of Lightfoot's article, I suggested the word
6iayu)y77i', which, while not so common as Siarpi^iyj', is yet used
with jToieZa-Sai, in the same sense, and its very uncommonness would
account more easily for the change to the much commoner 6ia6ox))i',
which is epigraphically so like it.
T'ne word \i.ixp'. is incorrectly translated afiud by Valesius, who
reads, inansi apiid Anicctuin. He is foIloNved by Cruse, who
translates " I made my stay with Anicetus"; but ^le^pi can mean
only "until." Hegesippus therefore, according to his own statement,
came to Rome before the accession of Anicetus and remained there
until the latter became bishop. See chap. 11, note 19, for the rela-
tion of this statement to that of Eusebius.
For particulars in regard to Anicetus, see chap. 11, note 18; on
Soter, see chap. 19, note 2, and on Eleutherus, Bk. V. Preface,
note 2.
^ See Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4. *a Aia toCto. Valesius pro-
poses to read jn^XP' toutou, which certainly makes better sense
and which finds some support in the statement made by Eusebius in
Bk. III. chap. 32, § 7. But all the MSS. have 6ta toOto, and, as
Stroth remarks, the illogical use of " therefore " at this point need
not greatly surprise us in view of the general looseness of Hegesip-
pus' style. The phrase is perhaps used proleptically, with a refer-
ence to what follows.
^ Of Thebuthis we know only what is told us here. The state-
ment that he became a heretic because he was not chosen bishop
has about as much foundation as most reports of the kind. It was
quite common for the Fathers to trace back the origin of schisms to
this cause (compare e.g. Tertullian's A dv. I'al. 4, and Dc Bapi. 17) .
made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was
sprung from the seven sects " among the people,
like Simon,^ from whom came the Simonians,
and Cleobius,** from whom came the Cleobians,
and Dositheus,^ from whom came the Dosithe-
ans, and Gorthceus,^" from whom came the Gora-
theni, and Masbotheus," from whom came the
Masbothoeans. From them sprang the Menan-
drianists,''^ and Marcionists,'"' and Carjjocratians,
and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnil-
ians. Each introduced privately and separately
his own peculiar opinion. From them came
false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who
divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doc-
trines uttered against God and against his
Christ." The same writer also records the 6
ancient heresies which arose among the Jews,
in the following words : " There were, moreover,
various opinions in the circumcision, among the
children of Israel. The following were those
that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and
the Christ : Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobap-
'' The seven sects are mentioned by Hegesippus just below.
Harnack maintains that Hegesippus in his treatment of heresies
used two sources, one of them being the lost Syntagma of Justin
(see his Quelle iikritik des Giwsticisniics, p. 37 sqq.). Lipsius,
who in his Quellen dcr Ketzergesch. combats many of Harnack's
positions, thinks it possible that Hegesippus 7nay have had Justin's
Syntagma before him.
' Simon Magus (see Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3).
8 Cleobius is occasionally mentioned as a heretic by ecclesiastical
writers, but none of them seems to know anything more about him
than is told here by Hegesippus (see the article Cleobius in the
Diet. 0/ Christ. Biog.),
^ Trustworthy information in regard to Dositheus is very scanty,
but it is probable that he was one of the numerous Samaritan false
messiahs, and lived at about the time of, or possibly before, Christ.
" It seems likely that the Dositheans were a Jewish or Samaritan
ascetic sect, something akin to the Essenes, existing from before
our Lord's time, and that the stories connecting their foimder with
Simon Magus and with John the Baptist [see the Clementine Recog-
nitions, II. 8 and Homilies, II. 24], maybe dismissed as merely
mythical" (Salmon, in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. art. Dositheus).
w Epiphanius and Theodoret also mention the Goratheni, but
apparently knew no more about them than Hegesippus tells us here,
Epiphanius classing them among the Samaritans, and Theodoret
deriving them from Simon Magus.
'1 The name Masbotheus is supported by no MS. authority, but is
given by Rufinus and by Nicephorus, and is adopted by most editors.
The majority of the MSS. read simply Mao-^wfiaioi or Macr^oiSeoi.
Just below, Hegesippus gives the Masbotheans as one of the seven
Jewish sects, while here he says they were derived from them. This
contradiction Harnack explains by Hegesippus' use of two different
sources, an unknown oral or written one, and Justin's Syntagma.
The list of heresies given here he maintains stood in Justin's Syn-
tagma, but the derivation of them from the seven Jewish sects cannot
have been Justin's work, nor can the list of the seven sects have been
made by Justin, for he gives quite a different list in his Dialogue,
chap. 80. Lipsius, p. 25, thinks the repetition of the " Masbotheans"
is more easily explained as a mere oversight or accident. The
Apostolic Const. VI. 6 name tlie Masbotheans among Jewish sects,
describing them as follows: "The Basmotheans, who deny provi-
dence, and say that the world is ruled by spontaneous motion,
and take away the immortality of the soul." From what source
this description was taken we do not know, and cannot decide as to
its reliability. Salmon (in the Diet. 0/ Christ. Biog.) remarks that
" our real knowledge is limited to the occurrence of the name in
Hegesippus, and there is no reason to think that any of those
who have imdertaken to explain it knew any more about the matter
than ourselves."
>2 On Menander and the Menandrianists, see Bk. II. chap. 26;
on the Carpocratians, chap. 7, note 17; on the Valentinians, see
chap. II, note i; on the Basilidaeans, chap. 7, note 7; on the Satur-
nilians, chap. 7, note 6.
13 There is some dispute about this word. The Greek is Mapici-
ai'iKTTai, which Harnack regards as equivalent to MapKttoi'KrTat, or
" followers of Marcion," but which Lipsius takes to mean " followers
of Marcus." The latter is clearly epigraphically more correct, but
the reasons for reading in this place Marcionites, or followers of
Marcion, are strong enough to outweigh other considerations (see
Harnack, p. 31 IT. and Lipsius, p. 29 ff.).
200
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 2i.
tists, Masbothseans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Phar-
isees." "
7 And he wrote of many other matters, which
we have in part already mentioned, intro-
ducing the accounts in their appropriate places.
And from the Syriac Gospel according to the
Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew
tongue,^* showing that he was a convert from
the Hebrews,^® and he mentions other matters
as taken from the unwritten tradition of the
8 Jews. And not only he, but also Irenteus
and the whole company of the ancients,
called the Proverbs of Solomon All-virtuous Wis-
dom.'^ And when speaking of the books called
Apocrypha, he records that some of them were
composed in his day by certain heretics. But
let us now pass on to another.
" These are the seven Jewish heresies mentioned above by Hege-
sippus. Justin {Dial. chap. 80) and Epiphanius (Anaceph.) also
name seven Jewish sects, but they are not the same as those
mentioned here (those of Justin: Sadducees, Genistae, Merista;,
Galileans, Hellenianians, Pharisees, Baptists). Epiphanius (Vol. I.
p. 230, Dindorf's ed., — Samaritan sects 4: Gorothenes, Se/Souaioi,
Essenes, Dositheans; Jewish 7: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees,
Hemerobaptists, 'Oo-caioc, Nazarenes, Herodians). See Jess,
in the Ztitschr./iir hist. Tlieol. 1865, p. 45 sq.
I'' The exact meaning of this sentence is very difficult to deter-
mine. The Greek reads : eic Tt toO ko.Q' 'Eppaious tiiayy«A.i'ou icai
TOu "^v^io-Kov Kat t5taj5 kK T^5 'E/3pat6o5 5taAe'icT0u Tiva. TLOj^atu. It
is grammatically necessary to supply evayyeKiov after SupiaxoO,
and this gives us a Syriac gospel in addition to the Hebrew. Some
have concluded that Tatian's Diatessaron is meant by it, but this
will not do; for, as Handmann remarks, the fact that Hegesippus
quotes from the work or works referred to is cited as evidence that
he was a Hebrew. Hilgenfeld supposes that the Chaldteo syroque
scriptiim cvangeliiiin sccunduin Hebrieos, which Jerome men-
tions, is referred to, and that the first-named (vayyiKiov KaO'
'E3paious is a Greek translation, while the to ^vpiaxoi/ represents
th-; original; so that Hegesippus is said to have used both the origi-
nal and the translation. Eusebius, however, could not have made
th: discovery that he used both, unless the original and the transla-
tion differed in their contents, of which we have no hint, and which
in itself is quite improbable. As the Greek reads, however, there is
no other explanation possible, unless the to ^vpiaKov evayy^Kiov be
taken to represent some other unknown Hebrew gospel, in which
case the following clause refers to the citations from both of the gos-
pels. That such a gospel existed, however, and was referred to by
Eusebius so casually, as if it were a well-known work, is not con-
ceivable. The only resource left, so far as the writer can discover, is to
amend the text, with Eichhorn, Nicholson, and Handmann, by strik-
ing out the first xai. The Toi) SupiaxoO then becomes a description
of the evayyeKiov Ka9' 'E(3paiou?, " The Syriac Gospel according to
the Hebrews." By the Syriac we are to understand, of course, the
vulgar dialect, which had before the time of Christ taken the place
of the Hebrew, and which is ordinarily called Aramaic. Eusebius
then, on this interpretation, first qualifies the Gospel of the Hebrews
more exactly, and then adds that Hegesippus quotes from the He-
brew original of it (ex ttJ; 'E/3pai6os SiaKexTov), and not from a
translation; e.g. from the Greek translation, which we know ex-
isted early. There is, to be sure, no MS. authority for the altera-
tion of the text, and yet the sense of the passage seems to demand
it, and I have consequently omitted the kolC in my translation. Upon
the interpretation of the passage, see Handmann's Hebr'der-Evan-
geliuin, p. 32 ff., and upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews, see
above, Bk. HI. chap. 25, note 24, and chap. 27, note 8.
"' Eusebius had abundant opportunity to learn from Hegesippus'
works whether or not he was a Hebrew Christian, and hence we
cannot doubt that his conclusion in regard to Hegesippus' nationality
(whether b.ased merely upon the premises given here, or partly
upon other facts unknown to us) is correct. His nationality ex-
plains the fact that he deduces the Christian heresies from Jewish,
and not, like other writers, from heathen roots. There is, however,
no reason, with Baur and others, to suppose that Hegesippus was a
Judaizer. In fact, Eusebius' respectful treatment of him is in itself
conclusive proof that his writings cannot have revealed heretical
notions.
" This phrase (n-ai'apeTos (To<f)ia) was very frequently employed
among the Fathers as a title of the Book of Proverbs. Clement of
Rome (i Cor. Ivii.) is, so far as I know, the first so to use it. The
word Trai-apeTO? is applied also to the apocryphal Wisdom of Solo-
mon, by Epiphanius {de mens, et pond. § 4) and others. Among
the Fathers the Book of -Sirach, the Solomonic Apocrypha, and the
Book of Proverbs all bore the common title <roi/na, " Wisdom,"
which well defines the character of each of them ; and this simple title
is commoner than the compound phrase which occurs in this pas-
CHAPTER XXHI.
Dionysiiis, Bishop of Corinth, and the Epistles
which he wrote}
And first we must speak of Dionysius, 1
who was appointed bishop of the church in
Corinth, and communicated freely of his inspired
labors not only to his own people, but also to
those in foreign lands, and rendered the greatest
service to all in the catholic epistles which
he wrote to the churches. Among these is 2
the one addressed to the Lacedaemonians,-
containing instruction in the orthodox faith and
an admonition to peace and unity ; the one also
addressed to the Athenians, exciting them to
faith and to the life prescribed by the Gospel,
which he accuses them of esteeming lightly, as
if they had almost apostatized from the faith
since the martyrdom of their ruler Publius,^
which had taken place during the persecu-
tions of those days. He mentions Quadra- 3
tus* also, stating that he was appointed
their bishop after the martyrdom of Publius, and
testifying that through his zeal they were brought
together again and their faith revived. He re-
cords, moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite,^
sage (cf. e.g. Justin Martyr's Dial. c. 129, and Melito, quoted by
Eusebius in chap. 26, below). For further particulars, see especially
Lightfoot's edition of the epistles of Clement of Rome, p. 164.
' Eusebius speaks, in this chapter, of seven Catholic epistles,
and of one addressed to an individual. None of these epistles are
now extant, though Eusebius here, and in Bk. W. chap. 25, gives us
four brief but interesting fragments from the Epistle to the Romans.
We know of the other epistles only what Eusebius tells us in this
chapter. That Dionysius was held in high esteem as a writer of
epistles to the churches is clear, not only from Eusebius' statement,
but also from the fact that heretics thought it worth while to circu-
late interpolated and mutilated copies of them, as stated below. The
fact that he wrote epistles to churches so widely scattered shows
that he possessed an extended reputation.
Of Dionysius himself (who is, without foundation, called a mar-
tyr by the Greek Church, and a confessor by the Latin Church) we
know only what we are told by Eusebius, for Jerome {de vir. ill.
27) adds nothing to the account given in this chapter. In his Chron.
Eusebius mentions Dionysius in connection with the eleventh year
of Marcus Aurelius. According to Eusebius' statement in this same
chapter, Dionysius' Epistle to the Romans was addressed to the
bishop Soter, and as Eusebius had the epistle before him, there is no
reason for doubting his report. Soter was bishop from about 167 to
175 (see above, chap, ig, note 4), and therefore the statements of
the Chron. and the History are in accord. When Dionysius died
we do not know, but he was no longer living in 199, for Bacchylus
was bishop of Corinth at that time (see Bk. V. chap. 22). It is com-
monly said that Dionysius was the immediate successor of Primus,
bishop of Corinth. This may be true, but we have no ground for
the assumption. We know only that Primus' episcopate was syn-
chronous, at least in part, with that of Pius of Rome (see the pre-
vious chapter, note 2), who was bishop from about 139 or 141 to 154
or 156, and that Dionysius' episcopate was synchronous at least in
part with that of Soter of Rome (about 167 to 175).
2 This is, so far as I am aware, the earliest mention of a church
at Lacedaimon or .Sparta. The bishop of Sparta is mentioned in
the synodical letter of the province of Hellas to the emperor Leo
(457-477 A.D.), and also still later in the Acts of the Sixth and
Eighth General Synods, according to Wiltsch's Geography and
Statistics of the Church (London ed. p. 134 and 466).
' Of this Publius we know only what Eusebius tells us here.
What particular persecution is referred to we cannot tell, but Pub-
lius' martyrdom seems to have occurred in the reign of Antoninus
Pius or Marcus Aurelius; for he was the immediate predecessor of
Quadratus, who was apparently bishop at the time Dionysius was
writing.
■" We know nothing more about this Quadratus, for he is to be
distinguished from the prophet and from the apologist (see chap. 3,
note 2). Eusebius' words seem to imply that he was bishop at the
time Dionysius was writing.
^ On Dionysius the Areopagite, see Bk. IIL chap. 4, note 20.
IV. 23.]
DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH.
20I
who was converted to the faith by the apostle
Paul, according to the statement in the Acts of
the Apostles," first obtained the episcopate
4 of the church at Athens. And there is ex-
tant another epistle of his addressed to the
Nicomedians/ in which he attacks the heresy of
Marcion, and stands fast by the canon of
5 the truth. Writing also to the church that
is in Gortyna/ together with the other par-
ishes in Crete, he commends their bishop Philip,^
because of the many acts of fortitude which are
testified to as performed by the church under
him, and he warns them to be on their guard
against the aberrations of the heretics.
6 And writing to the church that is in Amas-
tris,^° together with those in Pontus, he re-
fers to Bacchylides " and Elpistus, as having
urged him to write, and he adds explanations of
passages of the divine Scriptures, and mentions
their bishop Palmas ^- by name. He gives them
much advice also in regard to marriage and chas-
tity, and commands them to receive those who
come back again after any fall, whether it be
7 delinquency or heresy.''' Among these is in-
serted also another epistle addressed to the
Cnosians," in which he exhorts Pinytus, bishop of
6 See Acts xvii. 34.
' The extent of Dionysius' influence is shown by his writing an
epistle to so distant a church as that of Nicomedia in Bithynia, and
also to the churches of Pontus (see below) . The fact that he con-
siders it necessary to attack Marcionism in this epistle to the Nico-
medians is an indication of the wide and rapid spread of that sect, —
which indeed is known to us from many sources.
» Gortyna was an important city in Crete, which was early the
seat of a bishop. Tradition, indeed, makes Titus the first bishop of
the church there.
" Of this Philip, bishop of Gortyna, and a contemporary of
Dionysius, we know only what Eusebius tells us here and in chap.
1" Amastris was a city of Pontus, which is here mentioned for the
first time as the seat of a Christian church. Its bishop is referred to
frequently in the Acts of Councils during the next few centuries (see
also note 12, below).
11 This Bacchylides is perhaps identical with the Bacchylus who
was afterward bishop of Corinth (Bk. V. chap. 22). Elpistus is an
otherwise unknown personage.
12 This Palmas, bishop of Amastris in Pontus, presided as senior
bishop over a council of the bishops of Pontus held toward the close
of the century on the paschal question (see Bk. V. chap. 23). Noth-
ing more is known of him.
•3 It is quite likely, as Salmon suggests (in the Diet, of Christ.
Biog.'), that Dionysius, who wrote against Marcion in this epistle to
the Nicomedians, also had Marcionism in view in writing on life and
discipline to the churches of Pontus and Crete. It \vas probably in
consequence of reaction against their strict discipline that he advo-
cated the readmission to the Church of excommunicated offenders,
in this anticipating the later practice of the Roman church, which
was introduced by Callixtus and soon afterward became general,
though not without bitter opposition from many quarters. Harnack
(Dogniengeschichte , p. 332, note 4) throws doubt upon the correct-
ness of this report of Eusebius; but such doubt is unwarranted, for
Eusebius had Dionysius' epistle before him, and the position which
he represents him as taking is quite in accord with the mildness
which he recommends to Pinytus, and is therefore just what we
should expect. The fact that Callixtus' principle is looked upon by
TertuUian and Hippolytus as an innovation does not militate at all
against the possibility that Dionysius in Corinth, or other indi-
viduals in other minor churches, held the same principles some time
before.
" Cnossus, or Cnosus, was the capital city of Crete.
This epistle is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about
Pinytus himself except what is told us here and in chap. 21, above,
where he is mentioned among the ecclesiastical writers of the day.
Jerome {de vir. ill. 28) only repeats what Eusebius says, and
Rufinus, in stating that Pinytus was convinced by the epistle of
Dionysius and changed his course, seems simply to have misunder-
stood what Eusebius says about his admiration for and praise of
Dionysius. It is evident from the tone of his reply that Pinytus
was not led by Dionysius' epistle to agree with him.
the parish, not to lay upon the brethren a grievous
and compulsory burden in regard to chastity, but
to have regard to the weakness of the mul-
titude. Pinytus, replying to this epistle, ad- 8
mires and commends Dionysius, but exhorts
him in turn to impart some time more solid food,
and to feed the people under him, when he wrote
again, with more advanced teaching, that they
might not be fed continually on these milky
doctrines and imperceptibly grow old under a
training calculated for children. In this epistle
also Pinytus' orthodoxy in the faith and his care
for the welfare of those placed under him, his
learning and his comprehension of divine things,
are revealed as in a most perfect image.
There is extant also another epistle written 9
by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed
to Soter,'^ who was bishop at that time. We can-
not do better than to subjoin some passages from
this epistle, in which he commends the practice
of the Romans which has been retained down
to the persecution in our own days. His
words are as follows : " For from the begin- 10
ning it has been your practice to do good to
all the brethren in various ways, and to send con-
tributions to many churches in every city. Thus
relieving the want of the needy, and making
provision for the brethren in the mines by the
gifts which you have sent from the beginning,
you Romans keep up the hereditary customs of
the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter
has not only maintained, but also added to, fur-
nishing an abundance of supplies to the saints,
and encouraging the brethren from abroad with
blessed words, as a loving father his chil-
dren." In this same episde he makes 11
mention also of Clement's episde to the
Corinthians,'*^ showing that it had been the cus-
tom from the beginning to read it in the church.
His words are as follows : " To-day we have
passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have
read your epistle. From it, whenever we read
it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also
from the former epistle, which was written
to us through Clement." The same writer 12
also speaks as follows concerning his own
episUes, alleging that they had been mutilated :
" As the brethren desired me to write episdes, I
wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the
devil have filled with tares, cutting out some
things and adding others." For them a woe is
reserved.'^ It is, therefore, not to be wondered
^■'' On Soter, see chap. 19, note 2.
This practice of the Roman church combined with other caijses
to secure it that position of influence and prominence which resulted
in the primacy of its bishop, and finally in the papacy. The posi-
tion of the Roman church, as well as its prosperity and numerical
strength, gave it early a feeling that it was called upon in an espe-
cial way to exercise oversight and to care for weaker sister churches,
and thus its own good ofiices helped to promote its influence and its
power. , , ,
J6 On Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, see Bk. III. chap. 16.
1' See above, note i.
1^ Compare Rev. xxii. 18.
202
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV.
at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's
writings also/^ since they have formed designs even
against writings which are of less account."-"
There is extant, in addition to these, another
epistle of Dionysius, written to Chrysophora,-^ a
most faithful sister. In it he writes what is suit-
able, and imparts to her also the proper spiritual
food. So much concerning Dionysius.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Theophilus Bishop of Antioch.
1 Of Theophilus/ whom we have men-
tioned as bishop of the church of Antioch,-
1" A probable, though not exclusive, reference to Marcion, for he
was by no means the only one of that age that interpolated and mu-
tilated the works of the apostles to fit his theories. Apostolic works
— true and false — circulated in great numbers, and were made the
basis for the speculations and mural requirements of many of the
heretical schools of the second century. "" ou TOiaurais.
21 Chrysophora is an otherwise unknown person.
1 Eusebius is the only Eastern writer of the early centuries to
mention Theophilus and his writings. Among the Latin Fathers,
Lactantius and Gennadius refer to his work, ad Aiitolycttin ; and
Jerome devotes chap, 25 of his dc vir. ill. to him. Beyond this
there is no direct mention of Theophilus, or of his works, during the
early centuries (except that of IVIalalas, which will be referred to
below). Eusebius here calls Theophilus bishop of Antioch, and in
chap. 20 makes him the sixth bishop, as does also Jerome in his
dc vir. ill. chap. 25. But in his epistle, ad Algas. (Migne, Ep.
121), Jerome calls him the seventh bishop of Antioch, beginning his
reckoning with the apostle Peter. Eusebius, in his Chron., puts
the accession of Theophilus into the ninth year of Marcus Aurelius
(169) ; and this may be at least approximately correct. The acces-
sion of his successor Maximus is put into the seventeenth year (177) ;
but this date is at least four years too early, for his work, ad A utoly-
cntn, quotes from a work m which the death of Marcus Aurelius
(who died in 180) was mentioned, and hence cannot have been written
before 181 or 182. We know that his successor, Maximus, became
bishop sometime between 189 and 192, and hence Theophilus died
between 181 and that time. We have only Eusebius' words (Jerome
simply repeats Eusebius' statement) for the fact that Theophilus was
bishop of Antioch (his extant works do not mention the fact, nor do
those who quote from his writings), but there is no good ground for
doubting the truth of the report. We know nothing more about his
life.
In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter, Jerome
{^de vir. ill.) refers to Commentaries upon the Gospel and the book
of Proverbs, in the following words: Legi sub nomine ejus in
Evangeliuni ct in Proverbia Salonwnis Coinincniarios qui mihi
cum supcriorujn vohcniiniitn clcgantia et phrasi iwn vidcntur
congritcre. The commentary upon the Gospel is referred to by
Jerome again in the preface to his own commentary on Matthew;
and in his epistle, ad Algasiam, he speaks of a harmony of the four
Gospels, hy ')^\\fia\i\n\\is, (^giii gtiatiior Evangelisiarmn in icnuin
opus dicta coinpiugfiis), which may have been identical with the
commentary, or may have formed a basis for it. This commentary
is mentioned by none of the Fathers before or after Jerome; and
Jerome himself expresses doubts as to its genuineness, or at least he
does not think that its style compares with that of the other works
ascribed to Theophilus. Whetlier the commentary was genuine or
not we have no means of deciding, for it is no longer extant. There
is in existence a Latin commentary on the Gospels in four books,
which bears the name of Theophilus, and is published in Otto's
Corpus Apol. Vol. VIIL p. 278-324. Tliis was imiversally regarded
as a spurious work until Zahn, in 1883 (in his Forschungen zur
Gesch. des N. T. Canons, Theil IL) made an elaborate effort to
Erove it a genuine work of Theophilus of Antioch. Harnack,
owevcr, in his Texte und Untcrs. \. 4, p. 97-175, has shown
conclusively that Zahn is mistaken, and that the extant commentary
is nothing better than a Post-Nicene compilation from the works of
various Latin Fathers. Zahn, in his reply to Harnack {Forschun-
gen, Theil IIL Beilage 3), still maintains that the Commentary is a
genuine work of Theophilus, with large interpolations, but there is
no adequate ground for such a theory; and it has found few, if any,
supporters. We must conclude, then, that if Theophilus did write
such a commentary, it is no longer extant.
The three books addressed to Autolycus (a heathen friend other-
wise unknown to us) are still extant in three Mcdiajval MSS. and
have been frequently published both in the original and in translation.
The best edition of the original is that of Otto {Corp. Apol. Vol.
VllL) ; English translation by Dods, in the Ante-Nice/ie Fathers,
Vol. II. p. 85-121. The worK is an apology, designed to exhibit
three elementary works addressed to Autolycus
are extant ; also another writing entitled Against
the Heresy of Hermogenes,'^ in which he makes
use of testimonies from the Apocalypse of John,
and finally certain other catechetical books.*
And as the heretics, no less then than at 2
other times, were like tares, destroying the
pure harvest of apostoHc teaching, the pastors
of the churches everywhere hastened to restrain
them as wild beasts from the fold of Christ, at
one time by admonitions and exhortations to
the brethren, at another time by contending
more openly against them in oral discussions
and refutations, and again by correcting their
ojDinions with most accurate proofs in writ-
ten works. And that Theophilus also, with 3
the others, contended against them, is man-
ifest from a certain discourse of no common
merit written by him against Marcion.^ This
work too, with the others of which we have
spoken, has been preserved to the present day.
Maximinus,^ the seventh from the apostles, suc-
ceeded him as bishop of the church of An-
tioch.
the falsehood of idolatry and the truth of Christianity. The author
was a learned writer, well acquainted with Greek philosophy; and
his literary style is of a high order. He acknowledges no good in
the Greek philosophers, except what they have taken from the Old
Testament writers. The genuineness of the work has been attacked,
but without sufficient reason.
From Book H. chap. 30 of his ad Autol. we learn that Theophi-
lus had written also a work On History. No such work is extant,
nor is it mentioned by Eusebius or any other Father. Malalas,
however, cites a number of times " The chronologist Theophilus,"
and it is possible that he used this lost historical work. It is possi-
ble, on the other hand, that he refers to some other unknown The-
ophilus (see Harnack, Textc und Unters. \. i, p. 291).
2 In chap. 20, above.
3 This work against Hermogenes is no longer extant. Harnack
(p. 294 ff.) gives strong grounds for supposing that it was the com-
mon source from which TertuUian, in his work ad Hermogenein,
Hippolytus, in his Phil. VIII. 10 and X. 24, and Clement of Alex-
andria, in his Proph. Selections, 56, all drew. If this be true, as
seems probable, the Hermogenes attacked by these various writers
is one man, and his chief heresy, as we learn from TertuUian and
Hippolytus, was that God did not create the world out of nothing,
but only formed it out of matter which, like himself, was eternally
existent.
■• These catechetical works {riva Karrix'jTi/ca PifiKia), which
were extant in the time of Eusebius, are now lost. They are men-
tioned by none of the Fathers except Jerome, who speaks of alii
breves elegantesque iraciatus ad cedificationem Eeclesioe perti-
nentcs as extant in his time. We know nothing more of their
nature than is thus told us by Jerome.
'"' This work, which is also now lost, is mentioned by no other
Father except Jerome, who puts it first in his list of Theophilus'
writings, but does not characterize it in any way, though he says it
was extant in his time. Irenseus, in four passages of his great work,
exhibits striking parallels to Bk. II. chap. 25 of Theophilus' ad
Autol., which have led to the assumption that he knew the latter
work. Harnack, however, on account of the shortness of time
wliich elapsed between the composition of the ad Autol. and Ire-
na;us' work, and also on account of the nature of the resemblances
between the parallel passages, thinks it improbable that Irena;us
used the ad Autol., and concludes that he was acquainted rather
with Theophilus' work against Marcion, a conclusion which accords
best with the facts known to us.
'' Here, and in Bk. V. chap. 19, § i, Eusebius gives this bishop's
name as Maximinus. In the Chron. wc find Mafi/iios, and in
Jerome's version Maximus, though one MS. of the latter gives
Maximinus. According to the Chron. he became bishop in 177,
and was succeeded by Ser.apion in 190. As remarked in note 1 ,
above, the former date is incorrect, for Theophilus must have lived
at least as late as 181 or 182. We cannot reach certainly in -regard
to the date either of his accession or of his death ; but if Eusebius'
statement (in Bk. V. chap. 19), that Serapion was bishop while
Commodus was still emperor, is to be believed (see further, Pk. V.
chap. 19, note i), Maximinus must h.ave died at least as early as T92,
which gives us for his episcopate some part of the periled from 181 to
192. We know no particulars in regard to the life of Ma.ximinus,
IV. 26.]
MELITO OF SARDIS.
203
CHAPTER XXV.
Phi Zip and Modest us.
Philip who, as we learn from the words of
Dionysius,' was bishop of the parish of Gortyna,
Hkewise wrote a most ehiborate work against
Marcion,- as did also Irennens ^ and Modestus.'
The last named has exposed the error of the
man more clearly than the rest to the view of
all. There are a number of others also whose
works are still preserved by a great many of the
brethren.
CHAPTER XXVI.
Melito and the Circumstances which he records.
1 In those days also Melito/ bishop of the
parish in Sardis, and Apolinarius," bishop
1 See above, chap. 23, § 5.
- Philip's work against 5larcion which Eusebius mentions here
is no longer extant, and, so far as the writer knows, is mentioned by
no other Father except Jerome {dc vir. ill. 30), who tells ns only
what Eusebius records here, using, however, the adjective prwcla-
ritin for Eusebius' crn-ouSatoTaTOf.
^ On Irenaeus, see above, chap. 21, note g.
* Modestus, also, is a writer known to us only from Eusebius
(here, and in chap. 21) and from Jerome {dc vir. ill. 32). Accord-
ing to the latter, the work against Marcion was still extant in his
day, but he gives us no description of it. He adds, however, that a
number of spurious works ascribed to Modestus were in circulation
at that time {Fcruntur snb nomine ejus et alia syntagmata, scd
ab eruditis quasi ijj€vS6ypa<pa. rcpudiantiir). Neither these nor
the genuine works are now extant, so far as we know.
1 The first extant notice of Melito, bishop of Sardis, is found in
the letter addressed by Polycrates to Bishop Victor of Rome (c. 190-
202 A.D.) in support of the Quartodeciman practice of the Asia
Minor churclies. A fragment of this letter is given by Eusebius in
Blv. V. chap. 24, and from it we learn that Melito also favored the
Quartodeciman practice, that he was a man whose walk and conver-
sation were altogether under tlie influence of the Holy Spirit, and
that he was buried at Sardis. Polycrates in this fragment calls
Melito a eunuch. Whetlier the word is to be understood in its literal
sense or is to be taken as meaning simply that Melito lived in " vir-
gin continence" is disputed. In favor of the latter interpretation
may be urged the fact that the Greek word and its Latin equivalent
were very commonly used by the Fathers in this figurative sense,
e.g. by Athenagoras, by Tertullian, by Clement of Alexandria, by
Cassianus (whose work on continence bore the title Trepl evKpareia?,
i( n-epi eui-ouYia^), by Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, "Theodoret,
Gregory Nazianzen, &c. (see Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christ.
Biog-., article Melito, and Suicer's Thesaurus). On the other
hand, such continence cannot have been a rare thing in Asia Minor
in the time of Polycrates, and the foct that Melito is called specifi-
cally "the eunuch" looks peculiar if nothing more than that is
meant by it. The case of Origen, who made himself a eunuch for
the sake of preserving his chastity, at once occurs to us in this con-
nection (see Renan, Vcglise cliret. p. 436, and compare Justin Mar-
tyr's Apol. I. 29). The canonical rule that no such eunuch could
hold clerical office came later, and hence the fact that Melito was a
bishop cannot be urged against the literal interpretation of the word
here. Polycrates' meaning hardly admits of an absolute decision,
but at least it cannot be looked upon as it is by most historians as
certain that he uses the word here in its figurative sense.
Polycrates says nothing of the fact that Melito was a writer,
but we learn from this chapter (§ 4), and from Bk. VI. chap. 13,
that Clement of Alexandria, in a lost work, mentioned his writings
and even wrote a work in reply to one of his (see below, note 23).
According to the present chapter he was a very prolific writer, and
that he was a man of marked talent is clear from Jerome's words
in his de vir. ill. chap. 24 (where he refers to Tertullian's lost work,
de Ecstasi): Huj'us [i.e. Melitonis] clegans et deelamatorium
ingeiiium Tertulliauus in sefiiem libris, quos seripsit adversus
ceelesiain pro Montano, eavillatur, dicens eum a plerisque nos-
troru?n prophetam putari. In spite of the fact that Tertullian
satirized Melito's talent, he nevertheless was greatly influenced by
his writings and owed much to them (see the points of contact be-
tween the two men given by Harnack, p. 250 sqq.). The statement
that he was regarded by many as a prophet accords well with Poly-
crates' description of him referred to .above. The indications all
point to the fact that Melito was decidedly ascetic in his tendencies,
find that he had a great deal in common with the spirit which gave
of Ilierapolis, enjoyed great distinction. Each
of them on his own part addressed a[)ologies in
behalf of the faith to the above-mentioned em-
peror^ of the Romans who was reigning at
that time. The following works of these 2
writers have come to our knowledge. Of
Melito/ the two books On the Passover/ and
rise to Montanism and even made Tertullian a Montanist, and yet
at the same time he opposed Montanism, and is therefore spoken of
slightingly by Tertullian. His position, so similar to that of the
Montanists, was not in favor with the orthudox theologians of the
third century, and this helps to explain why, although he was such a
prolific and talented writer, and although he remained orthodox, he
nevertheless ])assed almost entirely out of the memory of tlie Church
of the third and following centuries. To this is to be added tlie frut
that Melito was a chiliast; and the teacliinss of the Montanists
brought such disrepute upon chiliasm that the Fathers of the third
and following centuries did not show much fondness for those who
held or had held these views. Very few notices of Melito's works
are found among the Fathers, and none of those works is to-day
extant. Eusebius is the first to give us an idea of the number and
variety of his writings, and he does little more than mention the
titles, a fact to be explained only by his lack of sympathy wiih
INIelito's views.
The time at which Melito lived is indicated with sufficient exact-
ness by the fact that he wrote his Apology during the reign of
Marcus Aurclius, but after the death of his brother Lucius, i.e. after
169 (see below, note 21) ; and that when Polycrates wrote his epistle
to Victor of Rome, he had been dead already some years. It is
possible (as held by Piper, Otto, and others) that his Apology was
his last work, for Eusebius mentions it last in his list. At the same
time, it is quite as possible that Eusebius enumerates Melito's works
simply in the order in which he found them arranged in the library
of Caesarea, where he had perhaps seen them. Of the dates of his
episcopacy, and of his predecessors and successors in the see of
Sardis, we know nothing.
In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius,
who does not pretend to give a full list, we find in Anastasius Sinaita's
Hodegos sen dux viie e. aeeph. fragments from two other works
entitled ei? to ttclSos and Trepl erapicuKjeu)? ,\pi(rToO (the latter directed
against Marcion), which cannot be identified with any mentioned by
Eusebius (see Harnack, I. i, p. 254). The Codex Nitriacus RUisci
Britannici 12,156 contains four fragments ascribed to Melito, of
which the first belongs undoubtedly to his genuine work Trepl i|(i;,\^?
/cat cTuifjLaTO';, which is mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius. The
second purports to be taken from a work, Trepi (rravpov, of which we
hear nowhere else, and which may or may not have been by Melito.
The third fragment bears the title A/elitonis episcopi de fide, and
might be looked upon as an extract from the work Trepl TriVTcw?,
mentioned by Eusebius (as Otto regards it) ; but the same fragment
is four times ascribed to Irenaeus by other early authorities, and an
analysis of these authorities shows that the tradition in favor of
Irena;us is stronger than that in favor of Melito, and so Harnack
mentions a work, Trepi TriVrew?, which is ascribed by Maximus Con-
fessor to Irenaeus, and from which the quotation may have been
taken (see Harnack, ibid. p. 266 (i^. The fourth fragment was
taken in all probability from Melito's work, Trepl TrdSovs, mentioned
by Anastasius. An Apology in Syriac, bearing the name of Melito,
is extant in another of the Nitrian MSS. in the British Museum
(No. 14,658), and has been published with an English translation by
Cureton, in his Spie. Syr. (p. 41-51). It has been proved, how-
ever, that this Apology (which we have entire) was not written by
Melito, but probably by an inhabitant of Syria, in the latter part of
the second, or early part of the third century, — whether originally
in the Greek or Syriac language is uncertain (see Harnack, p. 261 fi".,
and Smith and Wace, Vol. III. p. 895). In addition to the genuine
writings, there must be mentioned also some spurious works which
are still extant. Two Latin works of the early Sliddle Ages, entitled
de transitu Mariie and de passione S. yoannis Evangelistie, and
also a Catena of the latter Middle Ages on the Apocalypse, and a
Clavis Seripturie o{ t^e<Z^xVt\n\^\aw period (see below, note 18),
bear in some MSS. the name of Melito. This fact shows that Melito's
name was not entirely forgotten in the Occidental Church of the
Middle Ages, though little exact knowledge of him seems to have
existed.
On Melito and his writings, see Piper's article in the Theol.
Studien und Kritiken,\ZT,Z,\). $\-\'^s,; Salmon's article in Smith
and Wace, and especially Harnack's Texte und Unters. I. _i,
p. 240-278. The extant fragments of Melito's writings are given in
Routh's Rel. Sac. I. 111-153, and in Otto's Corp. Apol. IX. 374-
478, and an English translation in the Ante- Nice ne Fathers, Vol.
VIII. p. 750-762. 2 On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.
3 IViarcus Aurelius.
< The following list of Melito's works is at many points very
uncertain, owing to the various readings of the MSS. and versions.
We have as authorities for the text, the Greek MSS. of Eusebius,
the History of Nicephorus, the translation of Rufinus, chap. 24 of
Jerome's de vir. ill., and the Syriac version of this passage of
Eusebius' History, which has been printed by Cureton, in his Spic.
Syr. p. 56 ff.
5 The quotation from this work given by Eusebius in § 7, per-
204
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 26.
one On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets/
the discourse On the Church/ and one On the
Lord's Day/ still further one On the Faith of
Man/ and one On his Creation/" another also
On the Obedience of Faith, and one On the
Senses ; " besides these the work On the Soul
and Body/^ and that On Baptism/'' and the one
tiaps enables us to fix approximately the date at which it was
written. Rufinus reads Sergius Paulus, instead of Servilius Paulus,
which is found in all the Greek MSS. Sergius Paulus is known to
have had his second consulship in 168, and it is inferred by Wad-
dington that he was proconsul about 164 to 166 (see Fastes des
provinces Asiaiiyues, chap. 2, § 148). No Servilius Paulus is
known in connection with the province of Asia, and hence it seems
probable that Rufinus is correct ; and if so, the work on the Passover
was written early in the sixties. The fragment which Eusebius
gives in this chapter is the only part of his work that is extant. It
was undoubtedly in favor of the Quartodeciman practice, for Poly-
crates, who was a decided Quartodeciman, cites Melito in support of
his position.
" The exact reading at this point is disputed. I read, with a
number of MSS., to wepl n-oAiTeios koX Trpo^rjrwi', making but one
work. On the Comhict of Life and the Prophets. Many MSS.,
followed by Valesius, Heuiichen, and Burton, read to. instead of to,
thus making either two works (one On the Conduct of Life, and the
other On the Prophets'), or one work containing more than one
book. Rufinus translates de optima conversatione liber iinns, sed
et de prophetis, and the Syriac repeats the preposition, as if it read
Kal Trept TToAiTet'a? Kat. Trcpt Trpotfi-qTmv. It is not quite certain
whether Rufinus and the Syriac thought of two works in translat-
ing thus, or of only one. Jerome translates, de vita prophetaruvt
librnm nnnm, and in accordance with this translation Otto pro-
poses to read Tif iTpo<j>riTuiV instead of Koi -npoifiriTMV. But this is
supported by no MS. authority, and cannot be accepted.
No fragments of this work are extant.
' 6 ir«pi eK/cATjo-tas. Jerome, de ecclesia libruin unuin.
8 6 TTtpi Kuptax^s Aoyos. Jerome, de Die Dominica libruin
U7iuin.
'■> Valesius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the
m.ajority of the MSS.,, read n-epi (^lio-eco; avSpiunov, On the Nature
of Man. Four important MSS., however, read irepi Trt'crTeio? avOpw-
TTov, and this reading is confirmed both by Rufinus and by the
Syriac; whether by Jerome also, as claimed by Harnack, is uncer-
tain, for he omits both this work and the one On the Obedience of
Faith, given just below, and mentions a de fide libruin unuin,
which does not occur in Eusebius' list, and which may have arisen
through mistake from either of the titles given by Eusebius, or, as
seems more probable, may have been derived from the title of the
work mentioned below, On the Creation and Generation of Christ,
as remarked in note 15. If this supposition be correct, Jerome
omits all reference to this work vrepl Trio-Tews avSpMivov. The text
of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this point. In the present
passage irio-Teio? is better supported by tradition than (/)uo-ea)s, and
at the same time is the more difficult reading, and hence I have
adopted it as more probably representing the original.
'" 6 Trepi jrAao-ecos. Jerome, de plasiitate libruin unuin.
!■ All the Greek MSS. combine these two titles into one, reading
o jrepl ii7raicoi)S TrioTew? ato'SrjTrjpcuji': " On the subjection (or obedi-
ence) of the senses to faith." This reading is adopted by Valesius,
Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads 6 wepl vTra/coij?
7rt<TTe(os, KoX 6 Trepl a\<rBr\Tr]piiov , and Rufinus translates, de obedi-
entia ftdei, de sensibus, both of them making two works, as I have
done in the text. Jerome leaves the first part untranslated, and
reads only de sensibus, while the Syriac reproduces only the words
6 n-epi iiTraico^! (or a/co>js) TricrTeoj?, omitting the second clause.
Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack con-
sequently read 6 -ntpX UTraKoij? ttio-tcios, 6 Trepi aladr]T-qpi.MV, con-
cluding that the words 6 irepi after TrioTeio? have fallen out of the
Greek text. I h.ave adopted this reading in my translation.
'= A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the
fact that most of the Greek MSS. read 6 Trepi i//ux^s xaX (Tuj^aTo? ij
voo<:, while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the ^ voos entirely.
Nicephorus and two of the Greek MSS. meanwhile read rt^ eV ots,
which is evidently simply a corruption of r\ vo6<;, so that the Greek
MSS. are iinanimous for this reading. Otto, Cruse, and Salmon
read xai vo6^, but there is no authority for xai instead of 17, and the
change cannot be admitted. The explanation which Otto gives
(p. 376) of the change of >j to xai will not hold, as Harnack shows
on p. 247, note 346. It seems to me certain that the words i) voo';
did not standin the original, but that the word coo? (either alone or
preceded by 17 or <cai) was written upon the margin by some scribe,
perhaps as an alternative to i/zux^?, perhaps as an addition in the
interest of trichotomy, and was later inserted in the text after <\ivxr)<;
and <rui)xaT09, under the impression that it was an alternative title
of the book. My reasons for this opinion are the agreement of the
versions in the omission of vo6<;, the impossibility of explaining the
jl before I'ods in the original text, the fact that in the Greek MSS.,
in Rufinus, and in the Syri.ac, the words /cai n-epi v//ux>)? xaX (Tu)iJ.aTO<:
are repeated further down in the list, — a repetition which Harnack
thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in
omitting coos confirms the omission of it in the present case, — and
On Truth/^ and On the Creation and Genera-
tion of Christ ; ^^ his discourse also On Proph-
ecy/^ and that On Hospitality;^'' still further,
The Key,^** and the books On the Devil and the
Apocalypse of John,^^ and the work On the Cor-
poreality of God,^ and finally the book ad-
finally, a fact which seems to me decisive, but which has apparently
hitherto escaped notice, that the coos follows instead of precedes the
o^iu/aaTos, and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly
have been preserved in the title of a book.
'•' 6 Trepi AovTpoO ; Jerome, de baptisinate.
1* Apolinarius (according to chap. 27) also wrote a work On
Truth, and the place which it holds in that list, between an apolo-
getical work addressed to the Greeks and one addressed to the Jews,
makes it probable that it too bore an apologetic character, being
perhaps devoted to showing that Christianity is pre-eminently the
truth. Melito's work on the same subject very likely bore a similar
character, as suggested by Salmon.
15 Six MSS., with Nicephorus, read KTiVews, " creation," but
five MSS., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read
TTio-Teios. The latter reading therefore has the strongest external
testimony in its favor, but must be rejected (with Stroth, Otto,
Heinichen, Harnack, etc.) as evidently a dogmatic correction of the
fourth century, when there was an objection to the use of the word
KTio-ts in connection with Christ. Rufinus divides the one work
On the Creation and Generation of Christ into two, — On Faith
and On the Generation of Christ and his prophecy, connecting
the second with the ne.xt-mentioned work. Jerome omits the first
clause entirely at this point, and translates simply de gcneratione
Christi libruin unuin. The de fide, however, which he inserts
earlier in his list, where there is no corresponding word in the Greek,
may be the title which he omits here (see above, note 9), displaced,
as the title de sensibus is also displaced. If this be true, he becomes
with Rufinus and the Syriac a witness to the reading irio-Tetus instead
of KTio-eios, and like Rufinus divides the one work of Eusebius into
two.
'8 AH the Greek MSS. read /cai Aoyos avrov Trepi n-poi^TjTeias,
which can rightly mean only " his work on Prophecy "; but Jerome
translates de prophetia sua libruin unuin, and Rufinus de prophe-
tia ejus, while the Syriac reads as if there stood in the Greek irepi
A67011 T))S Trpo(^T)Tet'as auToO. All three therefore connect the avToi)
with the T7po<^i)Tetas instead of with the Adyos, which of course is
much more natural, since the ovroC with the Adyos seems quite unnec-
essary at this point. The translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and
Jerome, however, would require irepi Trpo<J)i)Teias aiiToO or irepi Trjs
aiiTou Trpo<f)i)Teias, and there is no sign that the ai/roO originally
stood in such connection with the Trpo(|»)Teias. We must, therefore,
reject the rendering of these three versions as incorrect.
1' Trepi ^i\o^s^via.%. After this title a few of the MSS., with Ru-
finus and the Syriac, add the words xai Trepi i//ux^s tai crcojuaTos, a
repetition of a title already given (see above, note 12).
'3 15 (cAeis; Jerome, ct aliuin libruin qui Clavis inscribiiur.
The word is omitted in the Syriac version. The nature of this work
we have no means of determining. It is possible that it was a key
to the interpretation of the Scriptures, designed to guide the reader
in the study especially of the figures of the prophecies (cf. Otto, p.
401) and of the Apocalypse. Piper is right, however, in saying that
it cannot have been intended to supply the allegorical meaning of
Scripture words, like the extant Latin Clavis of Pseudo-Melito,
mentioned just below; for Melito, who like TertuUian taught the
corporeality of God, must have been very literal — not allegorical —
in his interpretation of Scripture. A Latin work bearing the title
Melitonis Clavis Sanctce Scripturte was mentioned by Labbe in
1653 as contained in the library of Clermont College, and after years
of search was recovered and published by Pitra in 1855 in his Spici-
leg. Soles in. Vols. II. and III. He regarded the work as a transla-
tion, though with interpolations, of the genuine icAeis of Melito, but
this hypothesis has been completely disproved (see the article by
.Steitz in the Studien und Kritiken, 1857, p. 184 sqq.), and the
work has been shown to be nothing more than a mediaeval dictionary
of allegorical interpolations of Scripture, compiled from the Latin
Fathers. There is, therefore, no trace extant of Melito's Key.
'^ All the Greek MS.S. read xai Ta rrepi Toi; 6ia^dAoK, Koi t^s airo-
KaAuil/ttus 'luxiccov, making but one work, with two or more books,
upon the general subject, TJie De7<il and the Apocalypse of John.
The Syriac apparently agrees with the Greek in this respect (see
Harnack, p. 248, note 350) ; but Jerome and Rufinus make two
works, the latter reading de diabolo librunt ununt, de Apocalypst
Joannis libruin unuin. Origen, in Psalm. III. (ed. Lommatzsch,
XI. p. 411), says that Melito treated Absalom as a type of the devil
warring .against the kingdom of Christ. It has been conjectured
that the reference m.ay be to this work of Melito's, and that reference
is an argument for the supposition that Melito treated the devil and
the Apocalypse in one work (cf. Harnack, p. 248, and Smith and
W.ace,_p. 898).
■-" 6 Trepi t'co-w/iiaTov 0eoO. Jerome does not translate this phrase,
but simply gives the Greek. Rufinus renders de deo corfore in-
dnto, thus understanding it to refer to the incarnation of God, and
the Syriac agrees with this rendering. But as Harnack rightly re-
marks, we should expect, if this were the author's meaning, the
words Trepi tcvw/iJiaTws'cws ^toD, or rather Aoyov. Moreover, Origen
IV. 26.]
MELITO'S APOLOGY.
205
3 dressed to Antoninus.-* In the books On
the Passover he indicates the time at which
he wrote, beginning with these words : " While
ServiUus Paulus was proconsul of Asia, at the time
when Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there arose
in Laodicea a great strife concerning the Pass-
over, which fell according to rule in those
4 days ; and these were written." '^ And
Clement of Alexandria refers to this work
in his own discourse On the Passover,^
{Selecta z'li Gen. I. 26; Lommatzsch, VIII. p. 49) enumerates Me-
lito among those who taught the corporeality of God, and says that
he had written a work Trept toO kvcruiix.aTov eivac t6i' Beov. It is pos-
sible, of course, that he may not have seen Melito's work, and that
he may have misunderstood its title and have mistaken a work on
the incarnation for one on the corporeality of God; but this is not
at all likely. Either he had read the book, and knew it to be upon
the subject he states, or else he knew from other sources that Melito
believed in the corporeality of God, and hence had no doubt that this
work was upon that subject. There is no reason in any case for
doubting the accuracy of Origen's statement, and for hesitating to
conclude that the work mentioned by Eusebius was upon the cor-
poreality of God. The close relationship existing between Melito
and Tertullian has already been referred to, and this fact furnishes
confirmation for the belief that Melito held God to be corporeal, for
we know Tertullian's views on that subject. Gennadius {de eccles.
doginat. chap. 4) classes Melito and Tertullian together, as both
teaching a corporeality in the Godhead. What was the source of
his statement, and how much dependence is to be put upon it, we
cannot say, but it is at least a corroboration of the conclusion
already reached. We conclude then that Rufinus and the Syriac
were mistaken in their rendering, and that this work discussed the
corporeality, not the incarnation, of God.
21 6771 Traut Kal to Trpo? ' Kvtmv'ivov ^i^AtSiof. (Si^At'Siof (libel-
liis) was the technical name for a petition addressed to the emperor,
and does not imply that the work was a brief one, as Piper supposes.
The Apology is mentioned also in chap. 13, above, and at the begin-
ning of this chapter. Jerome puts it first in his list, with the words:
Melito Astanics, Sardcnsis episcopus, libricni imperatori M. An-
tonini I'ero, qui Frontonis oratoris discipulus fuit, pro chris-
tiano dogntate dedit. This Apology is no longer extant, and we
have only the fragments which Eusebius gives in this chapter. As
remarked in note i, above, the extant Syriac Apology is not a work
of Melito's. The Apology is mentioned in Jerome's version of the
Chron., and is assigned to the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius,
120 A.D. The notice is omitted in the Armenian, which, however,
assigns to the eleventh year of Marcus Aurelius the Apology of
Apolinarius, which is connected with that of Melito in the Ch. Hist.
Moreover, a notice of the Apology is given by Syncellus in connec-
tion with the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius, and also by the Chron.
Pasch. ; so that it is not improbable that Eusebius himself men-
tioned it in his Chron., and that its omission in the Armenian is a
mistake (as Harnack thinks likely). But though the notice may
thus have been made by Eusebius himself, we are nevertheless not
at liberty to accept the date given as conclusive. We learn from the
quotations given by Eusebius that the work was addressed to the
emperor after the death of Lucius Verus, i.e. after the year 1613.
Whether before or after the association of Commodus with his father
in the imperial power, which took place in 176, is uncertain; but I
am inclined to think that the words quoted in § 7, below, point to a
prospective rather than to a present association of Commodus in the
empire, and that therefore the work was written between 169 and
176. It must be admitted, however, that we can say with certainty
only that the work was written between 169 and 180. Some would
put the work at the beginning of those persecutions which raged in
177, and there is much to be said for this. But the dates of the local
and minor persecutions, which were so frequent during this period,
are so uncertain that little can be based upon the fact that we know
of persecutions in certain parts of the empire in 177. Piper, Otto,
and others conclude from the fact that the Apology is mentioned last
by Eusebius that it was Melito's latest work; hut that, though not
at all unlikely, does not necessarily follow (see above, note i).
22 A Sagaris, bishop and martyr, and probably the same man,
is mentioned by Polycrates in his epistle to Victor (Euseb. V. 24)
as buried in Laodicea. This is all we know of him. The date of
his martyrdom, and of the composition of the work On the Pass-
over, depends upon the date of the proconsulship of ServiUus (or
Sergius) Paulus (see above, note 5). The words enTrtVofTos Kara
Kaipov have unnecessarily caused Salmon considerable trouble. The
words Kara icaipoi/ mean no more than " properly, regularly, accord-
ing to appointment or rule," and do not render e'/ceiVat? rais rjfie'pai?
superfluous, as he thinks. The clause koX eyp6.<l>r) ravra (" and
these were written") expresses result, — it was in consequence of
the passover strife that Melito wrote this work.
^ This work of Clement's, On the Passover, which he says he
wrote on occasion of Melito's work, was clearly written in reply to
and therefore against the work of Melito, not as a supplement to it,
as Hefele supposes {Conciliengesch. I. 299). The work of Clem-
ent (which is mentioned by Eusebius, VI. 13, in his list of Clement's
which, he says, he wrote on occasion of
Melito's work. But in his book addressed 5
to the emperor he records that the follow-
ing events happened to us under him : " For,
what never before happened,^* the race of the
pious is now suffering persecution, being driven
about in Asia by new decrees. For the shame-
less informers and coveters of the property of
others, taking occasion from the decrees, openly
carry on robbery night and day, despoiling those
who are guilty of no wrong." And a little further
on he says : " If these things are done by thy
command, well and good. For a just ruler will
never take unjust measures ; and we indeed
gladly accept the honor of such a death. But 6
this request alone we present to thee, that
thou wouldst thyself first examine the authors
of such strife, and justly judge whether they be
worthy of death and punishment, or of safety
and quiet. But if, on the other hand, this coun-
sel and this new decree, which is not fit to be
executed even against barbarian enemies, be not
from thee, much more do we beseech thee not
to leave us exposed to such lawless plundering
by the populace."
Again he adds the following : ^ " For our 7
philosophy formerly flourished among the
Barbarians ; but having sprung up among the
nations under thy rule, during the great reign of
thy ancestor Augustus, it became to thine empire
especially a blessing of auspicious omen. For
from that time the power of the Romans has
grown in greatness and splendor. To this power
thou hast succeeded, as the desired possessor,^^
and such shalt thou continue with thy son, if
thou guardest the philosophy which grew up with
the empire and which came into existence with
Augustus ; that philosophy which thy ancestors
also honored along with the other religions.
And a most convincing proof that our 8
doctrine flourished for the good of an em-
pire happily begun, is this — that there has no
evil happened since Augustus' reign, but that,
on the contrary, all things have been splendid
and glorious, in accordance with the prayers
of all. Nero and Domitian, alone, per- 9
suaded by certain calumniators, have wished
to slander our doctrine, and from them it has
come to pass that the falsehood^"" has been
writings) is no longer ext.ant, but some brief fragments of it have
been preserved (see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 8).
-^ This statement of Melito's is a very remarkable one. See
chap. 8, note 14.
^i"' The resemblance between this extract from Melito's Apology
and the fifth chapter of Tertullian's Apology is close enough to be
striking, and too close to be accidental. Tertullian's chapter is
quite different from this, so far as its arrangement and language are
concerned, but the same thought underlies both : That the emperors in
general have protected Christianity; only Nero and Domitian, the
most wicked of them, have persecuted it; and that Christianity has
been a blessing to the reigns of all the better emperors. We cannot
doubt that Tertullian was acquainted with Melito's Apology, as well
as with others of his works. ^^ eincToio?.
26a The reference here seems to be to the comnion belief that
the Christians were responsible for all the evils which at any time
happened, such as earthquakes, floods, famines, etc.
206
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 26.
handed down, in consequence of an un-
10 reasonable practice which prevails of bring-
ing slanderous accusations against the
Christians.'-^ But thy pious fathers corrected
their ignorance, having frequently rebuked in
writing-^ many who dared to attempt new meas-
ures against them. Among them thy grand-
father Adrian appears to have written to many
others, and also to Fundanus,^'^ the proconsul
and governor of Asia. And thy father, when
thou also wast ruling with him, wrote to the
cities, forbidding them to take any new measures
against us ; among the rest to the Larissseans,
to the Thessalonians, to the Athenians, and
11 to all the Greeks."" And as for thee, —
since thy opinions respecting the Chris-
tians ^^ are the same as theirs, and indeed much
more benevolent and philosophic, — we are the
more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask
of thee." These words are found in the above-
mentioned work.
12 But in the Extracts^- made by him the
same writer gives at the beginning of the
introduction a catalogue of the acknowledged
books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary
to quote at this point. He writes as follows :
13 " Melito to his brother Onesimus,'^ greet-
ing : Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the
word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from
the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour,
and concerning our entire faith, and hast also
desired to have an accurate statement of the
ancient book, as regards their number and their
order, I have endeavored to perform the task,
knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire
to gain information in regard to the word, and
knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God,
esteemest these things above all else, strug-
14 gling to attain eternal salvation. Accord-
27 afj>' uiv Kat TO T^5 (rvK0</>ai'Tta9 aXoyta crvvT}9GLa Trept rov<;
ToiouTous pvrivai <nj;u.pe'Pr)K<: xjievSoi;. The sentence is a difficult one
and has been interpreted in various ways, but the translation given
in the text seems to me best to express the writer's meaning.
^ eyypdilxo'; : i.e. in edicts or rescripts.
^•' This epistle to Fundanus is given in chap. 9, above. Upon
its genuineness, see chap. 8, note 14.
'^ On these epistles of Antoninus Pius, see chap. 13, note 9.
These ordinances to the LarissEeans, Thessalonians, Athenians, and
all the Greeks, are no longer extant. What their character must
have been is explained in the note just referred to.
'^^ Trepl TOuTuji'.
32 iv 5r) Tais ypatjxeio'at? auTw kKkoyal';. Jerome speaks of this
work as "?,K\oyiov, libros sex. "there are no fragments of it extant
except the single one from the preface given here by Euscbius.
The nature of the work is clear from the words of Melito himself.
It was a collection of testimonies to Christ and to Christianity,
drawn from the Old Testament law and prophets. It must, there-
fore, have resembled closely such works as Cyprian's Testiinonia,
and the Tcstimonia of Pseudo-Gregory, and other anti-Jewish
works, in which the appeal was made to the Old Testament — the
common ground accepted by both parties — for proof of the truth of
Christianity. Although the Ecloga of Melito were not anti-Jewish
m their design, their character leads us to classify them with the
general class of anti- Jewish works whose distinguishing mark is the
use of Old Testament prophecy in defense of Christianity (cf. the
writer's article on Christian Polemics against the Jews, in
the Pres. Review, July, 1888, and also the writer's Dialo.i^ue he-
twceti a Christian ami a yew, entitled 'Ai'Ti^oArj VlaniOKov Ka.\
♦lAwro?, New York, 1889).
On the canon which Melito gives, see Bk. III. chap, to, note i.
^ This Onesimus is an otherwise unknown person,
ingly when I went East and came to the
place where these things were preached and
done, I learned accurately the books of the
Old Testament, and send them to thee as writ-
ten below. Their names are as follows : Of
Moses, five books : Genesis, Exodus, Numbers,
Leviticus,^^ Deuteronomy ; Jesus Nave, Judges,
Ruth ; of Kings, four books ; of Chronicles,
two ; the Psalms of David,^ the Proverbs of
Solomon, Wisdom also,^" Ecclesiastes, Song of
Songs, Job ; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah ; of
the twelve prophets, one book^'^ ; Daniel, Eze-
kiel, Esdras.^ From which also I have made
the extracts, dividing them into six books."
Such are the words of Melito.
CHAPTER XXVn.
Apolinarius, Bishop of the Church of Hierapolis .
A NUMBER of works of Apolinarius ^ have been
preserved by many, and the following have
'* Some MSS., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before Numbers,
but the best MSS., followed by Heinichen, Burton, and others, give
the opposite order.
35 ij/a\ij.u)v AafiiS. Literally, " of the Psalms of David" [one
book].
S'> fj Koi 2o(^ia: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200).
•" Literally, " in one book" (tmi' SuiScKa ec /iOvo^i/SAo)).
38 'EorSpas: the Greek form of the Hebrew name J^^TU, Ezra.
Melito refers here to the canonical Book of Ezra, which, among the
Jews, commonly included our Ezra and Nehemiah (see Bk. IH.
chap. 10, note i).
1 The first extant notice of Apolinarius is that of Serapion, bishop
of Antioch from about 192 to 209 (see Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius,
p. 46), in the epistle quoted by Eusebius in V. ig. We learn from
this notice that Apolinarius was already dead when Serapion wrote
(he calls him " most blessed bishop"; jaaKapiajTaro?), and that he
had been a skillful opponent of Montanism. His name is not men-
tioned again, so far as we know, by any Father of the second or third
century. Jerome {de vir. ill. 26) snnply repeats the account of
Eusebius, but in his Epist. ad Magnum , c. 4 (Migne, I. 607), he
enumerates Apolinarius among those Christian writers who were
acquainted with heathen literature, and made use of it in the refuta-
tion of heresies. Photius (Cod. 14) praises his literary style in high
terms. Socrates (//. E. HI. 7) names Apolinarius with Irena;us,
Clement of Alexandria, and Serapion as holding that the incarnate
Christ had a human soul (t'p.'/'i'X'"' ''''"' erarOpajn-Tjaa^Ta), Jerome,
in his de vir. ill. chap. 18, mentions an Apolinarius in connection
with Irenaius as a chiliast. But in his Co»i7nent. in Ezech. Bk. XI.
chap. 36, he speaks of Irena;us as the first, and Apolinarius as the
last, of the Greek Millenarians, which shows that some other Apoli-
narius is meant in that place, and therefore without doubt in the
former passage also; and in another place {Prooem. in lib. Xl'IIi.
Comin. in Esaiam) he says that Apolinarius replied to Dionysius
of Alexandria on the subject of the Millenium, and we are therefore
led to conclude that Apolinarius, bishop of Laodicea (of the fourth
century), is meant (see Routh, Rel. Sac. I. 174). Of the bishops of
Hierapolis, besides Apolinarius, we know only Papias and Abircius
Marcellus (of whom we have a Martyrdom, belonging to the second
century; see Pitra, Spic. Soles/n. III. 533), who, if he be identical
with the Abircius Marcellus of Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 16 (as Har-
nack conjectures) must have been bishop after, not before Apolina-
rius (see note 6 on Bk. V. chap. 16). It is impossible to determine
the exact date of Apolinarius' episcopate, or of his death. As we
see from Serapion's notice of him, he must have been dead at least
before 202. And if Abircius Marcellus was bishop after him, and
also bishop in the second century, Apolinarius must have died some
years before the year 200, and thus about the same time as Melito.
The fact that he is mentioned so commonly in connection with Melito,
sometimes before and sometimes after him, confirms this conclusion.
The Chron. mentions him as flourishing in the tenth (Syncellus and
Jerome), or the eleventh (Armenian) year of Marcus Aurelius. His
Apology was .addressed, as we learn from Eusebius, to Marcus Aure-
lius; and the fact that only the one emperor is mentioned may iierhaps
be taken (as some have taken it) as a .sign that it was written while
Marcus Aurelius was sole emperor (i.e. between 169 and 176). In
Bk. V. chap. 5, Eusebius speaks of the story of the thundering
legion as recorded by Apolinarius, and it has been thought (e.g. by
Salmon, in the Diet. 0/ Christ. Biog.) that this circumstance was
IV. 29.1
APOLINARIUS OF HIERAPOLIS.
207
reached us : the Discourse addressed to the
above-mentioned emperor,- five books Against
the Greeks,''* On Truth, a first and second book,*
and those which he subsec[uently wrote against
the heresy of the Phrygians,'^ which not long
recorded in the A/>o2i\!ry, which cannot then have been written before
the year 174. Harnack, however, remarks that this venturesome
report can liardly have stood in a work addressed to the emperor
himself. But that seems to assume that the story was not fully be-
lieved by Apolinarius, which can hardly have been the case. The
truth is, the matter cannot be decided; and no more exact date can
be given for the Apology. Eusebius, in the present chapter, in-
forms us that he has seen four works by Apolinarius, but says that
there were many others extant in his day. In addition to the ones
mentioned by luisebius, we know of a work of his. On the Pass-
over (,Trepl Tov ^acr\a), which is mentioned by the CJiron. Paschalc,
and two brief fragments of which are preserved by it. These frag-
ments have caused a discussion as to whether Apolinarius was a
Quartodeciman or not. The language of the first fragment would
seem to show clearly that he was opposed to the Quartodecimans,
and this explains the fact that he is never cited by the later Quarto-
decimans as a witness for their opinions. The tone of the work, how-
ever, as gathered from the fragments, shows that it must have been
written before the controversy had assumed the bitter tone which it
took when Victor became bishop of Rome; i.e. it was written, prob-
ably, in the seventies (see, also, Bk. V. chap. 23, note i). Photius
(Cod. 14) mentions three apologetic works by Apolinarius known to
him: jrpoj'EAArjra^, TTipL eixre/Seias, and Trtpi. aArjOcia?. The first and
last are mentioned by Eusebius, but the second is a work otherwise
unknown to us. There is no reason to suppose, as some have done,
that the Trepl €uo■e^elas does not designate a separate work (cf. e.g.,
Donaldson, Hist, of Christ. Lit. and Doctrine, III. 243), for
Eusebius expressly says that he mentions only a part of Apolina-
rius' writings. Theodoret {Hier. Fab. I. 21) mentions Apolinarius,
together with Musanus and Clement, as having written against the
Severians (see chap. 29, below). But, as Harnack justly remarks
(p. 235), the most we can conclude from this is, that Apolinarius, in
his Anti-Montanistic work, had mentioned the Severians with disap-
proval. Five MSS. of Eusebius, and the Church Hist, of Nicepho-
rus, mention just after the work 0>i Truth, a work Against the
yetus, in two books (xal Trpb; 'lovSaiov^ irpioToi' kol Seiirtpoi'). The
words are found in many of our editions, but are omitted by the ma-
jority of the best Greek MSS., and also by Rufinus and Jerome,
and therefore must be regarded as an interpolation ; and so they are
viewed by Heinichen, Laemmer, Otto, Harnack, and others. Har-
nack suggests that they were inserted under the influence of Bk. V.
chap. 17, § s, where tlie works of Miltiades are given. We thus
have knowledge of six, and only six, distinct works of Apolinarius,
though, since no writer has pretended to give a complete list, it is
quite probable that he wrote many others.
- On the approximate date of this Apology, see the previous
note. No fragments of the work are now extant, unless the ac-
count of the thundering legion mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. V.
chap. 5 belong to it (see the previous note) . Jerome speaks of the
work as an insigne zwlumen pro fide C/iristianoriiin, and in chap.
26, § I, Eusebius speaks of it as Adyo? i/Trep t>")5 Tri'o-Teco?. This
has given rise to the idea that the rrepX evo-e/3ei.'as mentioned by
Photius may be identical with this Apology (see the previous note).
But such an important work would certainly not have been men-
tioned with such an ambiguous title by Photius. We may con-
clude, in fact, that Photius had not seen the Apology. The Chroti.
Paschalc mentions the Apology in connection with those of
" JSIelito and many others," as addressed to the Emperor Marcus
Aurelius.
■* No fragments of this work are known to us. Nicephorus
(//. E. IV. 11) says that it was in the form of a dialogue, and it is
quite possible that he speaks in this case from personal knowledge,
fjr the work w:as still extant in the time of Photius, who mentions it
in Cod. 14 (see Harnack, p. 236).
* No fragments of this work are extant, and its nature is un-
known to us. It may have resembled the work of Melito upon the
same subject (see the previous chapter). The work is mentioned
by Photius as one of three, which he had himself seen.
^ Eusebius states here that the works against the Montanists
were written later than the other works mentioned. Where he got
this information we do not know; it is possible, as Harnack sug-
gests, that he saw from the writings themselves that Marcus Aurelius
was no longer alive when they were composed. Eusebius speaks
very highly of these Anti-Montanistic works, and in Bk. V. chap. 16,
§ I, he speaks of Apolinarius as a " powerful weapon and antago-
nist " of the Montanists. And yet it is a remarkable fact that he
does not take his account of the Montanists from the works of Apoli-
narius, but from later writings. This fact can be explained only as
Harnack explains it by supposing that Apolinarius was not decided
and clear enough in his opposition to the sect. The writer from
%vhom Eusebius quotes is certainly strong enough in his denuncia-
tions to suit Eusebius or any one else. Eusebius' statement, that
the Montanistic movement was only beginning at the time Apolina-
rius wrote against it (i.e. according to him between 175 and 180),
is far from the truth (see on this subject, Bk. V. chap. 16, note 12).
How many of these works Apolinarius wrote, and whether they
were books, or merely letters, we do not know. Eusebius says
afterwards came out with its innovations," but at
that time was, as it were, in its incipiency, since
Montanus, with his false prophetesses, was then
laying the foundations of his error.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Musanus and his IVritmgs.
And as for Musanus,' whom we have mentioned
among the foregoing writers, a certain very ele-
gant discourse is extant, which was written by
him against some brethren that had gone over
to the heresy of the so-called Encratites," which
had recently sprung up, and which introduced a
strange and pernicious error. It is said that
Tatian was the author of this false doctrine.
CHAPTER XXIX.
The Heresy of Tatian}
He is the one whose words we quoted 1
a little above ^ in regard to that admirable
simply KoX S /aera Tavra. (rvviypa^e. Serapion (in Eusebius, Bk. V.
chap. 19) calls them ypdfxixara, which Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 41)
translates litteras. These ypdixixara are taken as "letters" by
Valesius, Stroth, Danz, and Salmon; but Otto contends that the
word ypa.iJ-iJ.aTa, in the usage of Eusebius (cf. Eusebius, V. 28. 4),
properly means "writings" or "books" (scripta or libri) , not
" letters," and so the word is translated by Closs. The word itself
is not absolutely decisive, but it is more natural to translate it
" writings," and the circumstances of the case seem to favor that
rather than the rendering " letters." I have therefore translated it
thus in Bk. VI. chap. 19. On the life and writings of Apolinarius,
see especially Salmon's article in the Did. of Christ. Biog. and Har-
nack's Te.xte -iind Untersiich. I. i, 232-239. The few extant frag-
ments of his works are published by Routh (I. 151-174), and by
Otto (IX. 479-495) ; English translation in the A nte-Nicene Fathers,
VIII. 772. *' (caii'OTO^7)0ei<rTj?.
' Of this Musanus, we know only what Eusebius tells us here,
for Jerome {de vir. ill. 31) and Theodoret {Ht^r. Fab.\. 21) simply
repeat the account of Eusebius. It is clear from Eusebius' language,
that he had not himself seen this work of Musanus; he had simply
heard of it. Here, and in chap. 21, Eusebius assigns the activity of
Musanus to the reign of ISIarcus Aurelius, making him a contempo-
rary of Melito, Apolinarius, IreuEeus, &c. But in the Chron. he is
put much later. The Armenian version, under the year of Abr.
2220 (the eleventh year of Septimius) , has the entry Musanus noster
scriptor cognoscebaticr. Jerome, under the same year (2220 of
Abr., but twelfth year of Severus) has Musanus iwstrce filosofice
scriptor agnoscitur ; while Syncellus, under the year of Abr. 2231
(fourth year of Caracalla) has Moucrtarb? eKKArjcriao-TiKo? avyypa^^v^
kyvuipiC,i-!Q. All of them, therefore, speak of Musanus (or Musia-
nus) as a writer, but do not specify any of his works. The dates in
the Chron. (whichever be taken as original) and in the History are
not mutually exclusive; at the same time it is clear that Eusebius was
not working upon the same information in the two cases. We have
no means of testing the correctness of either statement.
2 On Tatian _and the Encratites, see the next chapter.
1 From his Oratio (chap. 42) we learn that Tatian was born in
Assyria, and that he was early educated in Greek philosophy, from
which we may conclude that he was of Greek parentage, — a con-
clusion confirmed by the general tone of the Oratio ("cf. Harnack,
Ueberlieferung der Griech. Apol. p. 199 sq., who refutes Zahn]s
opinion that Tatian was a Syrian by race). We learn from his
Oratio also that he was converted to Christianity in mature life (cf.
chap. 29 sq.). From the passage quoted in the present chapter from
Irenaeus, we learn that Tatian, after the death of Justin (whose dis-
ciple he was; see also chap. 16, above), fell into heresy, and the
general fact is confirmed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, and others. Beyond these meager notices y/e
have little information in regard to Tatian's life. Rhodo (quoted iii
Bk. V. chap, i^, below) mentions him, and " confesses that he
was a pupil of Tatian's in Rome, perhaps implying that this was
after Tatian had left the Catholic Church (though inasmuch as the
word "confesses" is Eusebius', not Rhodo's, we can hardly lay
the stress that Harnack does upon its use in this connection). Epi-
208
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 29.
man, Justin, and whom we stated to have been
a disciple of the martyr. Irenaeus declares this
in the first book of his work Against Heresies,
where he writes as follows concerning both
2 him and his heresy : ^ " Those who are
called Encratites,* and who sprung from
phanius gives quite an account of Tatian in his Hcer. XLVI. i, but
as usual he falls into grave errors (especially in his chronology).
The only trustworthy information that can be gathered from him is
that Tatian, after becoming a Christian, returned to Mesopotamia
and taught for a while there (see Harnack, ibid. p. 208 sq.). We
learn from his Oratio that he was already in middle life at the time
when he wrote it, i.e. about 152 a.d. (see note 13, below), and as a
consequence it is commonly assumed that he cannot have been born
much later than no a.d. Eusebius in his Chron. (XII. year of Mar-
cus Aurelius, 172 a.d.) says, Tatian iis Jiareticiis agnoscitur, a quo
Encratitce. There is no reason to doubt that this represents with
reasonable accur.acy tlie date of Tatian's break with the Catholic
Church. We know at any rate that it did not take place until after
Justin's death (165 a.d.). In possession of these various facts in
regard to Tatian, his life has been constructed in various ways by
historians, but Harnack seems to have come nearest to the truth in
his account of him on p. 212 sq. He holds that he was converted
about 150, but soon afterward left for the Orient, and while there
wrote his Oratio ad Gmcos ; that afterward he returned to Rome,
and was an honored teacher in the Church for some time, but finally
becoming heretical, broke with the Church about the year 172. The
arguments which Harnack urges over against Zahn (who maintains
that he was but once in Rome, and that he became a heretic in the
Orient and spent the remainder of his life there) seem fidly to estab-
lish his main positions. Of the date, place, and circumstances of
Tatian's death, we know nothing.
Eusebius informs us in this chapter that Tatian left "a great
many writings," but he mentions the titles of only two, the Address
to the Greeks and the Diatessaroii (see below, notes 11 and 13).
He seems, however, in § 6, to refer to another work on the Pauline
Epistles, — a work of which we have no trace anywhere else, though
we learn from Jerome's preface to his Commentary on Titus that
Tatian rejected some of Paul's epistles, as Marcion did, but unlike
Marcion accepted the epistle to Titus. We know the titles of some
other works written by Tatian. He himself, in his Oratio 15, men-
tions a work which he had written On Animals. The work is no
longer extant, nor do we know anything about it. Rhodo (as we are
told by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 13) mentioned a book a{ Problems
which Tatian had written. Of this, too, all traces have perished.
Clement of Alexandria {Strom. III. 12) mentions an heretical work
of Tatian's, entitled Trepi toO (card toi' aunripa. KaTapTio-/ixoO, On
Perfection according to the Saviour, which has likewise perished.
Clement (as also Origen) was evidently acquainted with still other
heretical works, especially one on Genesis (see below, note 7), but
he mentions the title only of the one referred to. Rufinus {H. E.
VI. 11) says that Tatian composed a Chronicon, which we hear
about from no other writer. Malalas calls Tatian a chronographer,
but he is evidently thinking of the chronological passages in his
Oratio, and in the absence of all trustworthy testimony we must
reject Rufinus' notice as a mistake. In his Oratio, chap. 40, Tatian
speaks of a work ^Igainst those luho have discoursed on Divine
Things, in which he intends to show " wh.at the learned among the
Greeks have said concerning our polity and the history of our laws,
and how many and what kind of men have written of these things."
Whether he ever wrote tlie work or not we do not know; we find no
other notice of it. Upon I'atian, see especially Zahn's Tatian's Dia-
tessaron and Harnack's Ueberlicferung, &c.,p. 196; also Donald-
son's Hist, of Christ. Lit. and Doct. II. p. 3 sqq., and J. M.
Fuller's article in the Diet, of Clirist. Biog.
2 In chap. 16. 3 Irenaeus, Adv. Heer. I. 28. i.
* 'KyitpaTei?, a word meaning "temperate" or "continent."
These Encratites were heretics who abstained from flesh, from wine,
and from marriage, not temporarily but permanently, and because
of a belief in the essential impurity of those things. They are men-
tioned also by Hippolytus {I'hil. VIII. 13), who calls them iyxpa.-
TiTai; by Clement of Alexandria {Ptpd. II. 2, Strom. I. 15, &c.),
who calls them «-y/<paTi)Tai; by Epiphanius (//*■>-. 47), who agrees
with Hippolytus in the form of the name, and by others. The
Encratites whom Irena;us describes seem to have constituted a dis-
tinct sect, anti-Jewish and Gnostic in its character. As described
by Hippolytus they appear to have been mainly orthodox in doctrine
but heretical in their manner of life, and we may perhaps gather tlie
same thing from Clement's references to them. It is evident, there-
fore, that Irena;us and the others are not referring to the same men.
So Theodoret, litrr. Fab. I. 21, speaks of the Severian Encratites;
but the Severians, as we learn from this chapter of Eusebius and
from Epiphanius {Hcer. XLV.), were Ebionitic and anti-Pauline in
their tendencies — the exact opposites, therefore, of the Encratites
referred to by Irena;us. That there was a distinct sect of Encratites
of the character described by Irena;us cannot be denied, but we must
certainly conclude that the word was used very commonly in a wider
sense to denote men of various schools who taught excessive and
heretical abstinence. Of course the later writers may have supposed
that they all belonged to one compact sect, but it is certain that
they did not. As to the particular sect which Irena;us describes,
the statement made by Eusebius at the close of the preceding chap-
Saturninus^ and Marcion, preached celibacy,
setting aside the original arrangement of God
and tacitly censuring him who made male and
female for the propagation of the human race.
They introduced also abstinence from the things
called by them animate,^ thus showing ingratitude
to the God who made all things. And they
deny the salvation of the first man.^ But 3
this has been only recently discovered by
them, a certain Tatian being the first to intro-
duce this blasphemy. He was a hearer of Jus-
tin, and expressed no such opinion while he was
with him, but after the martyrdom of the latter
he left the Church, and becoming exalted with
the thought of being a teacher, and puffed up
with the idea that he was superior to others, he
established a pecuhar type of doctrine of his
own, inventing certain invisible aeons like the
followers of Valentinus,^ while, like Marcion and
Saturninus, he pronounced marriage to be cor-
ruption and fornication. His argument against
the salvation of Adam, however, he devised for
ter is incorrect, if we are to accept Irenaeus' account. For the pas-
sage quoted in this chapter states that they sprung from Marcion
and Saturninus, evidently implying that they were not founded by
Tatian, but that he found them already in existence when he became
heretical. It is not surprising, however, that his name should be-
come connected with them as their founder — for he was the best-
known man among them. That the Encratites as such (whether a
single sect or a general tendency) should be opposed by the Fathers,
even by those of ascetic tendencies, was natural. It was not always
easy to distinguish between orthodo.x and heretical asceticism, and
yet there was felt to be a difference. The fundamental distinction
was held by the Church — whenever it came to self-consciousness
on the subject — to lie in the fact that the heretics pronounced the
things from which they abstained essentially evil in themselves,
thus holding a radical dualism, while the orthodox abstained only as
a matter of discipline. The distinction, it is true, was not always
preserved, but it was this essentially dualistic principle of the En-
cratites which the early Fathers combated; it is noticeable, however,
that they do not expend as much vigor in combating it as in refuting
errors in doctrine. In fact, they seem themselves to have been some-
what in doubt as to the proper attitude to take toward these extreme
ascetics.
5 On Saturninus and on Marcion, see chap. 7, note 6, and 11,
note 15. On their asceticism, see especially Irenaeus, Adv. liter. I. 24.
" Tioi' keyofxevuiv enil/vxuiv: i.e. animal food in general.
' Cf. Irenasus, Adv. Hcer. III. 23, where this opinion of Tatian's
is refuted at considerable length. The opinion seems a little peculiar,
but was a not unnatural consequence of Tatian's strong dualism,
and of his doctrine of a conditional immortality for those who have
been reunited with the Holy Spirit, who took his departure at the
time of the fall (cf. especially his Oratio, chap. 15). That Adam,
who, by his fall, brought about this separation, which has been of
such direful consequence to the race, should be saved, was naturally
to Tatian a very repugnant thought. He seems, moreover, to have
based his opinion, as Donaldson remarks, upon exegetical grounds,
interpreting the passage in regard to Adam (i Cor. xv. 22) as mean-
ing that Adam is and remains the principle of death, and as such, of
course, cannot himself enjoy life (see Irenaeus, ibid.). This is quite
in accord with the distinction between the psychical and physical man
which he draws in his Oratio. It is quite possible that he was
moved in part also by the same motive which led Marcion to deny
the salvation of Abraham and the other patriarchs (see Irena,us,
Adv. Hier. I. 27 and IV. 8), namely, the opposition between the
God of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament,
which led him to assert that those who depended on the former were
lost. We learn from Clement {Strom. III. 12) and from Origen
{de Orat. chap. 24) that among Tatian's heretical works was one in
which he discussed the early chapters of Genesis, and perhaps it was
in this work that he developed his peculiar views in regard to Adam.
8 On Valentinus, see chap. 11, note i. That Tatian was Gnostic
in many of his tendencies is plain enough, not only from these words
of lrcna;us, but also from the notices of him in other writers (cf.
especially Hippolytus, Phil. VIII. 9). To what extent he carried
his Gnosticism, however, and exactly in what it consisted, we cannot
tell. He can hardly have been a pronounced follower of Valentinus
and a zealous defender of the doctrine of /Eons, or we should find
him connected more prominently with that school. He was, in fact,
a decided eclectic, and a follower of no one school, and doubtless
this subject, like many others, occupied but a subordinate place in
his spcculationSf
IV. 30.]
TATIAN AND THE ENCRATITES.
209
himself." Irenocus at that time wrote thus.
4 But a Uttle later a certain man named
Severus* ]nit new strength into the afore-
said heresy, ami thus brought it about that those
who took their origin from it were called,
5 after him, Severians. They, indeed, use
the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but
interpret in their own way the utterances of the
Sacred Scriptures. And they abuse Paul the
apostle and reject his epistles, and do not
G accept even the Acts of the Apostles. But
their original founder, Tatian, formed a
certain combination and collection of the Gos-
pels, I know not how,^" to which he gave the
title Diatessaron}-^ and which is still in the
'•' That the Severinns, whoever they were, were Encratites in the
wide sense, that is, strict abstainers from flesh, wine, and marriage,
cannot be denied (compare with this description of Eiisebius that of
Epiphanius in Hcrr. XLV., also Theodoret's Hter. Fab. I. 21, who
says that Apolinarius wrote against the Severian Encratites, — a
sign that the Severians and the Encratites were in some way con-
nected in tradition even though Theodoret's statement may be unre-
liable). But that they were connected with Tatian and the Encra-
titic sect to which he belonged, as Eusebius states, is quite out of the
question. Tatian was a decided Paulinist (almost as much so as Mar-
cion himself). He cannot, therefore, have had anything to do with
this Ebionitic, anti-Pauline sect, known as the Severians. Whether
there was ever such a person as Severus, or whether the name arose
later to explain the name of the sect (possibly taken from the Latin
severics, "severe," as Salmon suggests), as the name Ebion was
invented to explain the term Ebionites, we do not know. We are
ignorant also of the source from which Eusebius took his description
of the Severians, as we do not find them mentioned in any of the
earlier anti-heretical works. Eusebius must have heard, as Epipha-
nius did, that they were extreme ascetics, and this must have led
him, in the absence of specific information as to their exact position,
to join them with Tatian and the Encratites, — a connection which
can be justified on no other ground.
1" oiiK oc5' oTTius. Eusebius clearly means to imply in these
words that he was not acquainted with the Diatessaroti. Lightfoot,
it is true, endeavors to show that these words may mean simply
disapproval of the work, and not ignorance in regard to it. But his
interpretation is an unnatural one, and has been accepted by few
scholars.
11 TO 6ta Tecr<TOLpiov. Eusebius is the first one to mention this
Diaiessaron, and he had evidently not seen it himself. After him
it is not referred to again until the time of Epiphanius, who in his
Hter. XLVI. i incorrectly identifies it with the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, evidently knowing it only by hearsay. Theodoret
{Hcer. Fab. I. 20) informs us that he found a great many copies of
it in circulation in his diocese, and that, finding that it omitted the
account of our Lord's birth, he replaced it by the four Gospels, fear-
ing the mischief which must result from the use of such a mutilated
Gospel. In the Doctrine ofAddai (ed. Syr. and Engl, by G. Phillips,
1876), which belongs to the third century, a Diatessaron is men-
tioned which is without doubt to be identified with the one under
consideration (see Zahn \. p. go sq.). Meanwhile we learn from the
preface to Dionysius bar Salibi's Commentary on Mark (see Asse-
mani, Bibl. Or. \. 57), that Ephraem wrote a commentary upon
the Diatessaron of Tatian {Tatianus Jicstini Pliilosophi ac Mar-
tyris Discipulus, ex qiiatuor Evarigeliis uniint digessit, quod
Diatessaron nnnciipavit. Hitnc libriim Sanctus Ephraem coin-
jnentariis illitstravii). Ephraem's commentary still exists in an
Armenian version (published at Venice in 1836, and in Latin in 1876
by Moesinger). There exists also a Latin Harmony of the Gospek,
which is without doubt a substantial reproduction of Tatian 's Dia-
tessaron, and which was known to Victor of Capua (of the sixth
century). From these sources Zahn has attempted to reconstruct
the text of the Diatessaron, and prints the reconstructed text, with
a critical commentary, in his Tatiaiis Diatessaron. Zahn main-
tains that the original work was written in Syriac, and he is followed
by Lightfoot, Hilgenfeld, Fuller, and others; but Harnack has given
very strong reasons for supposing that it was composed by "Tatian
in Greek, and that the Syriac which Ephraem used was a transla-
tion of that original, not the original itself. Both Zalin and Har-
nack agree, as do most other scholars, that the work was written
before Tatian became a heretic, and with no heretical intent. Inas-
much as he later became a heretic, however, his work was looked
upon with suspicion, and of course in later days, when so much
stress was laid (as e.g. by Irenaeus) upon the fourfold Gospel, Chris-
tians would be naturally distrustful of a single Gospel proposed as
a substitute for them. It is not surprising, therefore, that the work
failed to find acceptance in the Church at large. For further particu-
lars, see especially Zahn's monograph, which is the most complete
and exhaustive discussion of the whole subject. See also Harnack's
VOL. I. ;
hands of some. ]5ut they say that he ventured
to paraphrase certain words of the apos-
tle,^^ in order to improve their style. He 7
has left a great many writings. Of these
the one most in use among many persons is his
celebrated Address to the Greeks,'^ which also
appears to be the best and most useful of all his
works. In it he deals with the most ancient
times, and shows that Moses and the Hebrew
prophets were older than all the celebrated men
among the Greeks.^' So much in regard to
these men.
CHAPTER XXX.
Bardesanes the Syrian and his Extant Works.
In the same reign, as heresies were 1
abounding in the region between the riv-
ers,^ a certain Bardesanes," a most able man and a
Ueberh'e/erung der Griech. Apologeten, p. 213 ff.. Fuller's article
referred to in note i, the article by Lightfoot in the Contemporary
ReTieui for May, 1877, and those by Wace in the Expositor for 1881
and 1882.
12 i.e. of Paul, who was quite commonly called simply 6 knoa-ro-
A09. This seems to imply that Tatian wrote a work on Paul's epis-
tles (see note i, above).
13 Ao-yos 6 Trpbs "EAArji'a?: Oratio ad Grcecos. This work is
still extant, and is one of the most interesting of the early apologies.
The standpoint of the author is quite different from that of Justin,
for he treats Greek philosophy with the greatest contempt, and finds
nothing good in it. As remarked in note i, above, the Oratio was
prob.ably written after Tatian had left Rome for the first time, but
not long after his conversion. We may follow Harnack (p. 196) in fix-
ing upon 152 to 153 as an approximate date. The work is printed with
a Latin translation and commentary in Otto's Corp. Apol. Vol. VI.
The best critical edition is that of Schwartz, in v. Gebhardt and
Harnack's Texte tmd Untersuc/uaigen, IV. i (Leipzig, 1888),
though it contains only the Greek text. An English translation is
given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. p. 59-83.
1* Tatian devotes a number of chapters to this subject (XXXI.,
XXXV.-XLL). Eusebius mentions him, with Clement, Africanus,
Josephus, and Justus, in the preface to his Chron. (Schbne, II. p. 4),
as a witness to the antiquity of Moses, and it is probable that Julius
Africanus drew from him in the composition of his chronological
work (cf. Harnack, ibid. p. 224). Clement of Alexandria likewise
made large use of his chronological results (see especially his
Strom. I. 21), and Origen refers to them in his Contra Cels. I. 16.
It was largely on account of these chapters on the antiquity of
Moses that Tatian's Oratio was held in such high esteem, while his
other works disappeared.
1 i.e. Mesopotamia: iirX ri)? /ieo-Tj? tmv noranuiv.
2 Bardesanes or Bardaisan (Greek, BapSrjo-ai'r;?), a distinguished
Syrian scholar, poet, and theologian, who lived at the court of the
kmg of Edessa, is commonly classed among the Gnostics, but, as
Hort shows, without sufficient reason. Our reports in regard to
him are very conflicting. Epiphanius and Barhebra^us relate that
he was at first a distinguished Christian teacher, but afterward be-
came corrupted by the doctrines of Valentinus. Eusebius on the
other hand says that he was originally a Valentinian, but afterward
left that sect and directed his attacks against it. Moses of Chorene
gives a similar account. To Hippolytus he appeared as a member
of the Eastern school of Valentmians, while to Ephraem the Syrian
he seemed in general one of the most pernicious of heretics, who
nevertheless pretended to be orthodox, veiling his errors in ambigu-
ous language, and thus carrying away many of the faithful. Accord-
ing to Hort, who has given the subject very careful study, " there
is no reason to suppose that Bardesanes rejected the ordinary faith
of the Christians as founded on the Gospels and the writings of the
apostles, except on isolated points. The more startling peculiarities
of which we hear belong for the most part to an outer region of
speculation, which it may easily have seemed possible to combine
with Christianity, more especially with the undeveloped Christianity
of Syria in the third century. The local color is everywhere promi-
nent. In passing over to the new faith Bardaisan could not shake
off the ancient glamour of the stars, or abjure the Semitic love of
clothing thoughts in mythological forms." This statement explains
clearly enough the reputation for here«y which Bardesanes enjoyed
in subsequent generations. There is no reason to think that he
taught a system of seons like the Gnostics, but he does seem to
have leaned toward docetism, and also to have denied the proper
resurrection of the body. Ephraem accuses him of teaching Poly-
theism, in effect if not in words, but this charge seems to have
210
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IV. 30.
most skillful disputant in the Syriac tongue, hav-
ing composed dialogues against Marcion's fol-
lowers and against certain others who were
authors of various opinions, committed them to
writing in his own language, together with many
arisen from a misunderstanding of his mythological forms; he appar-
ently maintained always the supremacy of the one Christian God.
Thire is nothing in his theology itself to imply Valentinian influ-
ence, but the traditions to that effect are too strong to be entirely
set aside. It is not improb.iblo that he may, as Eusebius says,
have been a Valentinian for a time, and afterward, upon entering
the orthidjf church, have retained some of the views which he
g.iined nider their influence. This would explain the conflicting
reports of his theology. It is not necessary to say more about his
beliefs. Hjrt's article in Smith and Wace's Diet. 0/ Christ. Biog.
c Jntains an excellent discussion of the subject, and the student is
referred ti that.
The fiUoAfcrs of Bardesanes seem to have emphasized those points
in wlii:'i hi differed with the Church at large, and thus to have de-
pirtel fiirther from catholic orthodoxy. Undoubtedly Ephraem
( who is our most important authority for a knowledge of Bardesanes)
kn3.vs him only through his followers, who were very numerous
thr)u;h]ut th;; East in the fourth century, and hence passes a
harshcir judgment upon him than he might otherwise have done.
Epiriin mikes the uprooting of the "pernicious heresy" one of
his fjrem )st duties.
Eusebius in this chapter, followed by Jerome {de vir. ill. chap.
33), Epiphanins, Theodoret, and others, assigns the activity of Bar-
desanes to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (so also in the Chron.').
Bnt Hort says that according to the Chronicle of Edessa (Assemani,
Bibl. Or. I. 389) he was born July 11, 155, and according to Bar-
hebr^us {Chron. Eccl. ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, p. 49) he died in 223
at the age of sixty-eight, which confirms the date of his birth given by
the Chronicle of Edessa. These dates are accepted as correct by
Hilgenfeld and Hort, and the error committed by_ Eusebius and
those who followed him is explained by their confusion of the later
with the earlier Antonines, a confusion which was very common
among the Fathers.
His writin:;s, as stated by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and
otliers, were very numerous, and were translated (at least many of
them) into Greek. The dialogues against the Marcionists and
other heretics are mentioned also by Theodoret {Htpr. Fab. I. 22)
and by Barhebraeus. Epiphanius (who apparently had some inde-
pendent knowledge of the man and his followers) mentions {Heer.
LVI.) an Apology " in which he resisted Apollonius, the companion
of .Antoninus, when urged to deny that he was a Christian." This
was probably one of the many works which Eusebius says he wrote
on occasion of the persecution which arose at the time.
The Dialogue on Fate is said by Eusebius, followed by Rufinus
and Jerome, to have been addressed to Antoninus. Epiphanius
says that in this work he " copiously refuted Avidas the astrono-
mer," and it is quite possible that Eusebius' statement rests upon a
confusion of the names Avidas and Antoninus, for it is difficult to
conceive that the work can have been addressed to an emperor, and
in any case it cannot have been addressed to Marcus Aurelius, whom
Eusebius here means. This Dialogue on Fate is identified either
Other works. His pupils,'' of whom he had very
many (for he was a powerful defender of the
faith), translated these productions from
the Syriac into Greek. Among them there 2
is also his most able dialogue On Fate,* ad-
dressed to Antoninus, and other works which
they say he wrote on occasion of the persecution
which arose at that time.''
He indeed was at first a follower of 3
Valentinus," but afterward, having rejected
his teaching and having refuted most of his fic-
tions, he fancied that he had come over to the
more correct opinion. Nevertheless he did not
entirely wash off the filth of the old heresy.^
About this time also Soter,^ bishop of the
church of Rome, departed this life.
wholly or in part with a work entitled Book of the Laws of Coun-
trii's. which is still extant in the original Syriac, and has been pub-
lished with an English translation by Cureton in his Spicilcg. Syr.
A fragment of this work is given in Eusebius' Frcep. Evattg. VI.
9-10, and, until the discovery of the Syriac text of the entire work,
this was all that we had of it. This is undoubtedly the work
referred to by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and other Fathers, but it is no
less certain that it was not written by Bardesanes himself. As Hort
remarks, " the natural impulse to confuse the author with the chief
interlocutor in an anonymous dialogue will sufficiently explain the
early ascription of the Dialogue to Bardaisan himself by the Greek
Fathers." It was undoubtedly written by one of Bardesanes' disci-
ples, probably soon after his death, and it is quite likely that it does
not depart widely from the spirit of Bardesanes' teaching. Upon
Bardesanes, see, in addition to Hort's article, the monograph of
Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa (Halle, 1863), and that of Hilgenfeld,
Bardesaties, der Lctzte Giiostiker (Leipz. 1864).
3 yviapifioi. * See note 2.
'' Hort conjectures that Caracalla, who spent the winter of 216 in
Edessa, and threw the Prince Bar-Manu into captivity, may have
allied himself with a party which was discontented with the rule of
that prince, and which instituted a heathen reaction, and that this
was the occasion of the persecution referred to here, in which Bar-
desanes proved his firmness in the faith as recorded by Epiphanius.
^ See note 2.
' It is undoubtedly quite true, as remarked in note 2, that Barde-
sanes, after leaving Valentianism, still retained views acquired under
its influence, and that these colored all his subsequent thinking.
This fact may have been manifest to Eusebius, who had evidently
read many of Bardesanes' works, and who speaks here as if from
personal knowledge.
<* On Soter, see chap, 19, note 3.
BOOK V,
INTRODUCTION.
1 Soter/ bishop of the church of Rome,
died after an episcopate of eight years, and
was succeeded by Eleutherus,^ the twelfth from
the apostles. In the seventeenth year of the
Emperor Antoninus Venis,^ the persecution of
our people was rekindled more fiercely in certain
districts on account of an insurrection of the
masses in the cities ; and judging by the number
in a single nation, myriads suffered martyrdom
throughout the world. A record of this was
written for posterity, and in truth it is
2 worthy of perpetual remembrance. A full
1 On Soter, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note z.
2 Eusebius in his Chronicle gives the date of Eleutherus' acces-
sion as the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (177 A.D.), and
puts his death into the reign of Pertinax (192), while in chap. 22 of
the present book he places his death in the tenth year of Commodus
(189). Most of our authorities agree in assigning fifteen years to
his episcopate, and this may be accepted as undoubtedly correct.
Most of them, moreover, agree with chap. 22 of this book, in assign-
ing his death to the tenth year of Commodus, and this too may be
accepted as accurate. But with these two data we are obliged to
push his accession back into the year 174 (or 175), which is accepted
by Lipsius (see his Chron. der rdiii. Bischofe, p. 184 sq.). We
must therefore suppose that he became bishop some two years be-
fore the outbreak of the persecution referred to just below, in the
fourteenth or fifteenth year of Marcus Aurelius. In the Armenian
version of the Chroti. Eleutherus is called the thirteenth bishop of
Rome (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5), but this is a mistake,
as pointed out in the note referred to. Eleutherus is mentioned in
Bk. IV. chap. II, in connection with Hegesippus, and also in Bk.
IV. chap. 22, by Hegesippus himself. He is chiefly interesting
because of his connection with Irenaeus and the Gallican martyrs
(see chap. 4, below), and his relation to the Montanistic contro-
versy (see chap. 3). Bede, in his Hisi. Ecclcs., chap. 4, connects
Eleutherus with the origin of British Christianity, but the tradition
is quite groundless. One of the decretals and a spurious epistle are
falsely ascribed to him.
3 I.e., the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, A. D.
177 (upon Eusebius' confusion of Marcus Aurelius with Lucius
Verus, see below, p. 390, note). In the Chron. the persecution
at Lyons and Vienne is associated with the seventh year of Marcus
Aurelius (167), and consequently some (e.g. Blondellus, Stroth, and
Jachmann), have maintained that the notice in the present passage
IS incorrect, and Jachmann has attacked Eusebius very severely for
the supposed error. The truth is, however, that the notice in the
Chron. (in the Armenian, which represents the original form more
closely than Jenner's version does) is not placed opposite the seventh
year of Marcus Aurelius (as the notices in the Chron. commonly
are), but is placed after it, and grouped with the notice of Polycarp's
martyrdom, which occurred, not in 167, but in 155 or 156 (see above,
Bk. IV. chap. 15, note 2). It would seem, as remarked by Light-
foot {Ignatius, I. p. 630), that Eusebius simply connected together
the martyrdoms which he supposed occurred about this time, with-
out intending to imply that they all took pl.ace in the same year.
Similar groupings of kindred events which occurred at various times
during the reign of an emperor are quite common in the Chron.
(cf. the notices of martyrdoms under Trajan and of apologies and
rescripts under Hadrian). Over against the distinct statement of
the history, therefore, in the present instance, the notice in the
Chron. is of no weight. Moreover, it is clear from the present
passage that Eusebius had strong grounds for putting the persecution
into the time of Eleutherus, and the letter sent by the confessors to
Eleutherus (as recorded below in chap. 4) gives us also good reason
for putting the persecution into the time of his episcopate. But
Eleutherus cannot have become bishop before 174 (see Lipsius'
Chron. der r'dni. Bischofe, p. 184 sq., and note 2, above). There
is no reason, therefore, for doubting the date given here by Eusebius.
account, containing the most reliable informa-
tion on the subject, is given in our Collection
of Martyrdoms,"* which constitutes a narrative
instructive as well as historical. I will repeat
here such portions of this account as may be
needful for the present purpose.
Other writers of history record the victo- 3
ries of war and trophies won from enemies,
the skill of generals, and the manly bravery of
soldiers, defiled with blood and with innumer-
able slaughters for the sake of children and
country and other possessions. But our 4
narrative of the government of God^ will
record in ineffaceable letters the most peaceful
wars waged in behalf of the peace of the soul,
and will tell of men doing brave deeds for truth
rather than country, and for piety rather than
dearest friends. It will hand down to imperish-
able remembrance the discipline and the much-
tried fortitude of the athletes of religion, the
trophies won from demons, the victories over
invisible enemies, and the crowns placed upon
all their heads.
CHAPTER I.
The Number of those who fought for Religion
in Gaul under Verus and the Nature of their
Conflicts.
The country in which the arena was pre- 1
pared for them was Gaul, of which Lyons
and Vienne ^ are the principal and most celebrated
cities. The Rhone passes through both of them,
flowing in a broad stream through the entire re-
* All the MSS. read /liaprupioi', but I have followed Valesius (in
his notes) and Heinichen in reading fxaprupiMi', which is supported
by the version of Rufinus (de singulorum viartyriis) , and which
is the word used by Eusebnis in all his other references to the work
(Bk. IV. chap. 15 and Bk. V. chaps. 4 and 21), and is in fact the
proper word to be employed after uvi-aywyrj, " collection." We
speak correctly of a " collection of martyrdoms," not of a " collection
of martyrs," and I cannot believe that Eusebius, in referring to a
work of his own, used the wrong word in the present case. Upon
the work itself, see the Prolegomena, p. 30, of this volume.
^ ToO Kara Sibv iroAiTtuju.aT05, with the majority of the MSS.
supported by Rufinus. Some MSS., followed by Stroth, Burton,
and Schwegler, read Koff r)p.a? instead of Kara Otbi' (see Ileinichen's
note in loco). Christophorsonus translates divinam ^n'vendi ratio-
nem, which is approved by Heinichen. But the contrast drawn
seems to be rather between earthly kingdoms, or governments, and
the kingdom, or government, of God; and I have, therefore, pre-
ferred to give noMrevixa its ordinary meaning, as is done by Valesuis
(divinis reipublicie), Stroth {Rcpublik Gottes), and Closs {Staates
Gottes).
1 Aou'ySoui'o? Koi Btevva, the ancient Lugdunum and Vienna,
the modern Lyons and Vienne in southeastern France.
P 2
212
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V.I.
2 gion. The most celebrated churches in that
country sent an account of the witnesses ^ to
the churches in Asia and Phrygia, relating in the
following manner what was done among them.
I will give their own words.^
3 " The servants of Christ residing at Vienne
and Lyons, in Gaul, to the brethren through-
out Asia and Phrygia, who hold the same faith
and hope of redemption, peace and grace and
glory from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord."
4 Then, having related some other matters,
they begin their account in this manner :
"The greatness of the tribulation in this re-
gion, and the fury of the heathen against the
saints, and the sufferings of the blessed witnesses,
we cannot recount accurately, nor indeed
5 could they possibly be recorded. For with
all his might the adversary fell upon us,
giving us a foretaste of his unbridled activity at
his future coming. He endeavored in every
2 ixaprvpuiv. This word is used in this and the following chap-
ters of all those that suffered in the persecution, whether they lost
their lives or not, and therefore in a broader sense than our word
" martyr." In order, therefore, to avoid all ambiguity I have trans-
lated the word in every case " witness," its original significance.
Upon the use of the words /oiopTup and /uaprus in the early Church,
see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15.
3 The fragments of this epistle, preserved by Eusebius in this
and the next chapter, are printed with a commentary by Routh, in
his JfeL Sacm. I. p, 285 sq., and an English translation is given in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 778 sq. There can be no
doubt as to the early date and reliability of the epistle. It bears no
traces of a later age, and contains little of the marvelous, which
entered so largely into the spurious martyrologies of a later day. Its
genuineness is in fact questioned by no one so far as I am aware.
It is one of the most beautiful works of the kind which we have, and
well deserves the place in his History which Eusebius has accorded
it. We may assume that we have the greater part of the epistle in
so far as it related to the martyrdoms. Ado, in his Mart., asserts
that forty-eight suffered martyrdom, and even gives a list of their
names. It is possible that he gained his information from the epistle
itself, as given in its complete form in Eusebius' Collection of Mar-
tyrdoms ; but I am inclined to think rather that Eusebius has men-
tioned if not all, at least the majority of the martyrs referred to in
the epistle, and that therefore Ado's list is largely imaginary. Euse-
bius' statement, that a "multitude" suffered signifies nothing, for
fiupi'a was a very indefinite word, and might be used of a dozen or
fifteen as easily as of forty-eight. To speak of the persecution as
" wholesale," so that it was not safe for any Christian to appear out
of doors (Lightfoot, Ignatius, Vol. I. p. 499), is rather overstating
the case. The persecution must, of course, whatever its extent,
appear terrible to the Christians of the region; but a critical exami-
nation of the epistle itself will hardly justify the extravagant state-
ments which are commonly made in regard to the magnitude and
severity of the persecution. It may have been worse than any single
persecution that had preceded it, but sinks into insignificance when
compared with those which took place under Decius and Diocletian.
It is interesting to notice that this epistle was especially addressed
to the Christians of Asia and Phrygia. We know that Southern
Gaul contained a great many Asia Minor people, and that the inter-
course between the two districts was very close. Irenaeus, and other
prominent Christians of Gaul, in the second and following centuries,
were either natives of Asia Minor, or had pursued their studies
there; and so the Church of the country always bore a peculiarly
Greek character, and was for some centuries in sympathy and in
constant communication with the Eastern Church. Witness, for
instance, the rise and spread of scmi-Pelagianism there in the fifth
century, — a simple reproduction in its mam features of the anthro-
pology of the Eastern Church. Doubtless, at the time this epistle
was written, there were many Christians in Lyons and Vienne, who
had friends and relations in the East, and hence it was very natural
that an epistle should be sent to what might be called, in a sense,
the mother churches. Valesius expressed the opinion that Irenseus
was the author of this epistle; and he has been followed by many
other scholars. It is possible that he was, but there are no grounds
upon which to base the opinion, except the fact that Irena;us lived
in Lyons, and was, or afterward became, a writer. On the other
hand, it is significant that no tradition has connected the letter with
Irena;us' name, and that even Eusebius has no thought of such a
connection. In fact, Valesius' opinion seems to me in the highest
degree improbable.
manner to practice and exercise his servants
against the servants of God, not only shutting
us out from houses and baths and markets, but
forbidding any of us to be seen in any
place whatever. But the grace of God led 6
the conflict against him, and delivered the
weak, and set them as firm pillars, able through
patience to endure all the wrath of the Evil One.
And they joined battle with him, undergoing all
kinds of shame and injury ; and regarding their
great sufferings as little, they hastened to Christ,
manifesting truly that ' the sufferings of this
present time are not worthy to be compared
with the glory which shall be revealed to
us-ward.'* First of all, they endured nobly 7
the injuries heaped upon them by the popu-
lace ; clamors and blows and draggings and rob-
beries and stonings and imprisonments,^ and all
things which an infuriated mob delight in
inflicting on enemies and adversaries. Then, 8
being taken to the forum by the chiliarch '^
and the authorities of the city, they were exam-
ined in the presence of the whole multitude,
and having confessed, they were imprisoned
until the arrival of the governor. When, 9
afterwards, they were brought before him,
and he treated us with the utmost cruelty,
Vettius Epagathus,'' one of the brethren, and a
man filled with love for God and his neighbor,
interfered. His life was so consistent that, al-
though young, he had attained a reputation
equal to that of the elder Zacharias : for he
' walked in all the commandments and ordi-
nances of the Lord blameless,' * and was untir-
* Rom. viii. iS.
^ Of course official imprisonment cannot be referred to here. It
may be that the mob did actually shut Christians up in one or an-
other place, or it may mean simply that their treatment was such
that the Christians were obliged to avoid places of public resort and
were perhaps even compelled to remain somewhat closely at home,
and were thus in a sense " imprisoned."
'' x''^'"PX')^i strictly the commander of a thousand men, but com-
monly used also to translate the Latin Trilntiins militum.
' Of the various witnesses mentioned in this chapter (Vettius
Epagathus, Sanctus, Attains, Blandina, Biblias, Pothinus, Rlalurus,
Alexander, Ponticus) we kno%v only what this epistle tells us. The
question has arisen whether Vettius Epagathus really was a martyr.
Renan {Marc Aiirele, p. 307) thinks that he was not even arrested,
but that the words " taken into the ninnber of martyrs " (§ 10, be-
low) imply simply that he eiijuyed all the merit of martyrdom with-
out actually undergoing any suffering. He bases his oiiiiiion upon
the fact that Vettius is not mentioned again among the martyrs
whose sufferings are recorded, and also upon the use of the words,
" He was and is a true disciple " (§ 10, below). It is quite possible,
however, that Vettius, who is said to have been a man of high sta-
tion, was simply beheaded as a Roman citizen, and therefore there
was no reason for giving a description of his death; and still further
the words, " taken into the order of witnesses," and also the words
used in § 10, " being well pleased to lay down his life," while they
do not prove that he suffered martyrdom, yet seem very strongly to
imply that he did, and the quotation from the Apocalypse in the same
paragraph would seem to indicate that he was dead, not alive, at the
time the epistle was written. On the whole, it may be regarded as
probable, though not certain, that Vettius was one of the martyrs.
Valesius refers to Gregory of Tours {H. E. chaps. 29, ji) as mention-
ing a certain senator who was " of the lineage of Vettius Epagathus,
who suffered for the name of Christ at Lyons." Gregory's authority
is not very great, and he may in this case have known no more
about the death of Vettius than is told in the fragment which we
still possess, so that his statement can hardly be urged as proof that
Vettius did suffer martyrdom. But it may be used as indicating
that the latter was of a noble family, a fact which is confirmed in
§ 10, below, where he is spoken of as a man of distinction.
" Luke i. 6.
V. I.]
THE PERSECUTION AT LYONS.
213
ing in every good work for his neighbor, zealous
for God and fervent in spirit. Such being his
character, he could not endure the unreasonable
judgment against us, but was filled with indig-
nation, and asked to be permitted to testify in
behalf of his brethren, that there is among
10 us nothing ungodly or impious. But those
about the judgment seat cried out against
him, for he was a man of distinction ; and the
governor refused to grant his just request, and
merely asked if he also were a Christian. And
he, confessing this with a loud voice, was him-
self taken into the order ^ of the witnesses, being
called the Advocate of the Christians, but having
the Advocate^" in himself, the Spirit" more
abundantly than Zacharias.^- He showed this
by the fullness of his love, being well pleased
even to lay down his life ^^ in defense of the
brethren. For he was and is a true disciple of
Christ, 'following the Lamb whithersoever he
goeth,' "
11 " Then the others were divided/* and the
proto-witnesses were manifestly ready, and
finished their confession with all eagerness. But
some appeared unprepared and untrained,
weak as yet, and unable to endure so great a
conflict. About ten of these proved abortions,^^
causing us great grief and sorrow beyond meas-
ure, and impairing the zeal of the others who
had not yet been seized, but who, though suffer-
ing all kinds of affliction, continued constantly
with the witnesses and did not forsake
12 them. Then all of us feared greatly on ac-
count of uncertainty as to their confession ;
not because we dreaded the sufferings to be en-
dured, but because we looked to the end, and
were afraid that some of them might fall
13 away. But those who were worthy were
seized day by day, filling up their number,
so that all the zealous persons, and those through
whom especially our affairs had been established,
were collected together out of the two
14 churches. And some of our heathen ser-
0 kA^pov, employed in the sense of "order,"" class," " category."
Upon the significance of the word xA^pos in early Christian litera-
ture, see Ritschl's exhaustive discussion in \i\% Entstehjtng dcr alt-
katkolischcn K ire he, 2d ed., p. 388 sq.
w TrapaKATjToi' ; cf. John xiv. 16.
11 TTi/eu/j-a is omitted by three important MSS., followed by
Laemmer and Heinichen. Burton retains the word in his text, but
rejects it in a note. They are possibly correct, but I have preferred
to follow the majority of the codices, thinking it quite natural that
Eusebius should introduce the 7rre0/ia in connection with Zacharias,
who is said to have been filled with the " Spirit," not with the
" Advocate," and thinking the omission of the word by a copyist,
to whom it might seem quite superfluous after TrapdxATjToi', much
easier than its insertion.
^ See Luke i. 67. '3 Compare John xv. 13.
** Rev. xiv. 4.
15 Steicpii'oi'To. Valesius finds in this word a figure taken from
the athletic combats ; for before the contests began the combatants
were examined, and those found eligible were admitted (eiaxpiVe-
o-9ai), while the others were rejected (eicKpii/ecrflai).
"^ efeVpoxrai', with Stroth, Zimmermann, Schwegler, Burton,
and Heinichen. i^i-ntaov has perhaps a little stronger MS. support,
and was read by Rufinus, but the former word, as Valesius remarks,
being more unusual than the latter, could much more easily be
changed into the latter by a copyist than the latter into the former.
vants also were seized, as the governor had
commanded that all of us should be examined
publicly. These, being ensnared by Satan, and
fearing for themselves the tortures which they
beheld the saints endure," and being also urged
on by the soldiers, accused us falsely of Thyes-
tean banquets and Qi^dipodean intercourse,'** and
of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to
speak of or to think, but which we cannot
believe were ever done by men. When 15
these accusations were reported, all the
people raged like wild beasts against us, so that
even if any had before been moderate on ac-
count of friendship, they were now exceedingly
furious and gnashed their teeth against us. And
that which was spoken by our Lord was fulfilled :
* The time will come when whosoever killeth
you will think that he doeth God service.' '^
Then finally the holy witnesses endured 16
sufferings beyond description, Satan striving
earnestly that some of the slanders might be
uttered by them also.^
" But the whole wrath of the populace, and 17
governor, and soldiers was aroused exceed-
ingly against Sanctus, the deacon from Vienne,*'
and Maturus, a late convert, yet a noble com-
batant, and against Attains, a native of Perga-
mos," where he had always been a pillar and
foundation, and Blandina, through whom Christ
showed that things which appear mean and
obscure and despicable to men are with God of
great glory,^ through love toward him manifested
in power, and not boasting in appearance.
For while we all trembled, and her earthly 18
mistress, who was herself also one of the
witnesses, feared that on account of the weak-
ness of her body, she would be unable to make
bold confession, Blandina was filled with such
1" Gieseler {Ecclesmstical Hz'story, Harper's edition, I. p. 127)
speaks of this as a violation of the ancient law that slaves could not
be compelled to testify against their masters; but it is to be noticed
that it is not said in the present case that they were called upon to
testify against their masters, but only that through fear of what
might come upon them they yielded to the solicitation of the soldiers
and uttered falsehoods against their masters. It is not implied there-
fore that any illegal methods were employed in this respect by the
officials in connection with the trials.
1* i.e. of cannibalism and incest; for according to classic legend
Thyestes had unwittingly eaten his own sons served to him at a
banquet by an enemy, and CEdipus had unknowingly married his
own mother. Upon the terrible accusations brought against the
Christians by their heathen enemies, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 7,
note 20. ■'■' John xvi. 2.
-" KoX Si eKeiviav pT^Brjvai Tt tCjv ^AaiT(J>))fiwi'. The word p\a<r-
(/)^Hco;' evidently refers here to the slanderous reports against the
Christians such as had been uttered by those mentioned just above.
This is made clear, as Valesius remarks, by the xal 5i" e/cetVtov, " by
them also."
21 Valesius maintains that Sanctus was a deacon of the church
of Lyons, and that the words airo BUvvrj^ signify only that he was a
native of Vienne, but it is certainly more natural to understand the
words as implying that he was a deacon of the church of Vienne,
and it is not at all difficult to account for his presence in Lyons and
his martyrdom there. Indeed, it is evident that the church of Vienne
was personally involved in the persecution as well as that of Lyons.
Cf. § 13, above. ..
" Pergamos in Asia Minor (mentioned m Rev. u. 12, and the
seat of a Christian church for a number of centuries) is apparently
meant here. As already remarked, the connection between the
inhabitants of Gaul and of Asia Minor was very close.
23 Cf. I Cor. i. 27, 28,
214
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V.I.
power as to be delivered and raised above
those who were torturing her by turns from
morning till evening in every manner, so that
they acknowledged that they were conquered,
and could do nothing more to her. And they
were astonished at her endurance, as her entire
body was mangled and broken ; and they testi-
fied that one of these forms of torture was suffi-
cient to destroy life, not to speak of so
19 many and so great sufferings. But the
blessed woman, like a noble athlete, re-
/newed her strength in her confession; and her
comfort and recreation and relief from the pain
of her sufferings was in exclaiming, ' I am a
Christian, and there is nothing vile done by
us.'
20 " But Sanctus also endured marvelously
and superhumanly "* all the outrages which
he suffered. While the wicked men hoped, by
the continuance and severity of his tortures to
wring something from him which he ought not
to say, he girded himself against them with such
firmness that he would not even tell his name, or
the nation or city to which he belonged, or whether
he was bond or free, but answered in the Roman
tongue to all their questions, ' I am a Christian.'
He confessed this instead of name and city and
race and everything besides, and the people
21 heard from him no other word. There arose
therefore on the part of the governor and
his tormentors a great desire to conquer him ;
but having nothing more that they could do
to him, they finally fastened red-hot brazen
plates to the most tender parts of his body.
22 And these indeed were burned, but he con-
tinued unbending and unyielding, firm in his
confession, and refreshed and strengthened by
the heavenly fountain of the water of life,
23 flowing from the bowels of Christ. And
his body was a witness of his sufferings,
being one complete wound and bruise, drawn
out of shape, and altogether unlike a human
form. Christ, suffering in him, manifested his
glory, delivering him from his adversary, and
making him an ensample for the others, show-
ing that nothing is fearful where the love of the
Father is, and nothing painful where there
24 is the glory of Christ. For when the wicked
men tortured him a second time after some
days, supposing that with his body swollen and
inflamed to such a degree that he could not
bear the touch of a hand, if they should again
apply the same instruments, they would over-
come him, or at least by his death under his
sufferings others would be made afraid, not only
did not this occur, but, contrary to all human
expectation, his body arose and stood erect in the
midst of the subsequent torments, and resumed
its original appearance and the use of its limbs,
/6o that, through the grace of Christ, these sec-
ond sufferings became to him, not torture, but
healing.
" But the devil, thinking that he had al- 25
ready consumed Biblias, who was one of
those who had denied Christ, desiring to in-
crease her condemnation through the utterance
of blasphemy,"^ brought her again to the torture,
to compel her, as already feeble and weak,
to report impious things concerning us. But 26
^'^he recovered herself under the suffering,
and as if awaking from a deep sleep, and re-
minded by the present anguish of the eternal
punishment in hell, she contradicted the blas-
phemers. ' How,' she said, ' could those eat
children who do not think it lawful to taste the
blood even of irrational animals ? ' And thence-
forward she confessed herself a Christian, and was
given a place in the order of the witnesses.
" But as the tyrannical tortures were 27
made by Christ of none effect through the
patience of the blessed, the devil invented other
contrivances, — confinement in the dark and
most loathsome parts of the prison, stretching
of the feet to the fifth hole in the stocks,-® and
the other outrages which his servants are accus-
tomed to inflict upon the prisoners when furious
and filled with the devil. A great many were
suffocated in prison, being chosen by the Lord
for this manner of death, that he might
manifest in them his glory. For some, 28
though they had been tortured so cruelly
that it seemed impossible that they could live,
even with the most careful nursing, yet, desti-
tute of human attention, remained in the prison,
being strengthened by the Lord, and invigorated
both in body and soul ; and they exhorted and
encouraged the rest. But such as were young,
and arrested recently, so that their bodies had
not become accustomed to torture, were unable
to endure the severity of their confinement, and
died in prison.
"The blessed Pothinus, who had been 29
entrusted with the bishopric of Lyons, was
dragged to the judgment seat. He was more than
ninety years of age, and very infirm, scarcely in-
deed able to breathe because of physical weak-
ness ; but he was strengthened by spiritual zeal
through his earnest desire for martyrdom. Though
his body was worn out by old age and disease, his
life was preserved that Christ might triumph
in it. When he was brought by the soldiers to 30
the tribunal, accompanied by the civil magis-
trates and a multitude who shouted against him
in every manner as if he were Christ him-
self, he bore noble witness. Being asked 31
*" Blasphemy against Christianity, not against God or Christ;
that is, slanders against the Christians (cf. § 14, above), as is indi-
cated by the words that follow (so Valesius also).
2" See Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9.
V. I.]
THE PERSl'XUTION AT LYONS.
215
by the governor, Who was the God of the Chris-
tians, he repHed, ' If thou art worthy, thou shalt
know.' Then he was dragged away harshly, and
received blows of every kind. Those near him
struck him with their hands and feet, regard-
less of his age ; and those at a distance hurled
at him whatever they could seize ; all of them
thinking that they would be guilty of great wick-
edness and impiety if any possible abuse were
omitted. For thus they thought to avenge their
own deities. Scarcely able to breathe, he was
cast into prison and died after two days.
32 "Then a certain great dispensation of
God occurred, and the compassion of Jesus
appeared beyond measure,^^ in a manner rarely
seen among the brotherhood, but not be-
33 yond the power of Christ. For those who
had recanted at their first arrest were im-
prisoned with the others, and endured terrible
sufferings, so that their denial was of no profit
to them even for the present. But those who
confessed what they were were imprisoned as
Christians, no other accusation being brought
against them. But the first were treated after-
wards as murderers and defiled, and were pun-
ished twice as severely as the others.
34 For the joy of martyrdom, and the hope of
the promises, and love for Christ, and the
Spirit of the Father supported the latter ; but
their consciences so greatly distressed the former
that they were easily distinguishable from all the
rest by their very countenances when they
35 were led forth. For the first went out re-
joicing, glory and grace being blended in
their faces, so that even their bonds seemed like
beautiful ornaments, as those of a bride adorned
with variegated golden fringes ; and they were
perfumed with the sweet savor of Christ,-* so
that some supposed they had been anointed
with earthly ointment. But the others were
downcast and humble and dejected and filled
with every kind of disgrace, and they were re-
proached by the heathen as ignoble and weak,
bearmg the accusation of murderers, and hav-
ing lost the one honorable and glorious and life-
giving Name. The rest, beholding this, were
strengthened, and when apprehended, they con-
fessed without hesitation, paying no attention to
the persuasions of the devil."
36 After certain other words they continue :
"After these things, finally, their martyrdoms
were divided into every form.-° For plaiting a
crown of various colors and of all kinds of flowers,
they presented it to the Father. It was proper
" The compassion of Jesus appeared not in the fact that those
who denied suffered such terrible ^junishments, but that the differ-
ence between their misery in their sufferings and the joy of the
faithful in theirs became a means of strength and encouragement to
the other Christians. Compare the note of Heinichen (III. p. 180).
^ Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 15. Cf. also Bk. IV. chap. 15, § 37, above.
29 ficTa rai/Ta 5t) AoiTrof ecs nav elSos Sifipelro to. /xaprvpia ttjs
tfdSou aiiTuiv,
therefore that the noble athletes, having endured
a manifold strife, and conquered grandly, should
receive the crown, great and incorruptible.
" Maturus, therefore, and Sanctus and 37
Blandina and Attalus were led to the amphi-
theater to be exposed to the wild beasts, and to
give to the heathen public a spectacle of cruelty,
a day for fighting with wild beasts being spe-
cially appointed on account of our people.
Both Maturus and Sanctus passed again 38
through every torment in the amphitheater,
as if they had suffered nothing before, or rather,
as if, having already conquered their antagonist
in many contests,'^" they were now striving for
the crown itself. They endured again the
customary running of the gauntlet'^ and the
violence of the wild beasts, and everything
which the furious people called for or de-
sired, and at last, the iron chair in which their
bodies being roasted, tormented them with
the fumes. And not with this did the 39
persecutors cease, but were yet more mad
against them, determined to overcome their pa-
tience. But even thus they did not hear a word
from Sanctus except the confession which
he had uttered from the beginning. These, 40
then, after their life had continued for a
long time through the great conflict, were at last
sacrificed, having been made throughout that
day a spectacle to the world, in place of the
usual variety of combats.
" But Blandina was suspended on a stake, 41
and exposed to be devoured by the wild
beasts who should attack her.^" And because
she appeared as if hanging on a cross, and be-
cause of her earnest prayers, she inspired the
combatants with great zeal. For they looked
on her in her conflict, and beheld with their
outward eyes, in the form of their sister, him
who was crucified for them, that he might per-
suade those who believe on him, that every one
who suffers for the glory of Christ has fel-
lowship always with the living God. As 42
none of the wild beasts at that time touched
her, she was taken down from the stake, and
cast again into prison. She was i^reserved thus
for another contest, that, being victorious in
more conflicts, she might make the punishment
of the crooked serpent irrevocable ;^ and, though
small and weak and despised, yet clothed with
Christ the mighty and conquering Athlete, she
3" Slol 7T\ei6viai' Kkrfpoii'; undoubtedly a reference to the athletic
combats (see Valesius' note /« /aco).
^1 Ta9 6tef6(Sou; T<ui' ixaariyuiv Ta5 eKeicre i[9iaixiva<;. It was the
custom to compel the bestiarii before fighting with wild beasts to run
the gauntlet. Compare Shorting's and Valesius' notes in loco, and
Tertullian's ad Nationes, i8, and ad Marlyras, s, to which the
latter refers.
^- Among the Romans crucifixion was the mode of punishment
commonly inflicted upon slaves and the worst criminals. Roman
citizens were exempt from this indignity. See Lipsius' _De Cruce
and the various commentaries upon the Gospel narratives of the
crucifixion of Christ.
2^ Compare Isa. xxvii. i, which is possibly referred to here.
2l5
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 1.
might arouse the zeal of the brethren, and, hav-
ing overcome the adversary many times might
receive, through her conflict, the crown incor-
ruptible.
43 " But Attalus was called for loudly by
the people, because he was a person of dis-
tinction. He entered the contest readily on
account of a good conscience and his genuine
practice in Christian discipline, and as he had
always been a witness for the truth among
44 us. He was led around the amphitheater,
a tablet being carried before him on which
was written in the Roman language 'This is
Attalus the Christian,' and the people were filled
with indignation against him. But when the
governor learned that he was a Roman, he com-
manded him to be taken back with the rest of
those who were in prison concerning whom he
had written to Caesar, and whose answer he was
awaiting.
45 " But the intervening time was not wasted
nor fruitless to them ; for by their patience
the measureless compassion of Christ was mani-
fested. For through their continued life the
dead were made alive, and the witnesses showed
favor to those who had failed to witness. And
the virgin mother had much joy in receiving
y^ alive those whom she had brought forth as
46 dead.^'* For through their influence many
who had denied were restored, and re-be-
gotten, and rekindled with life, and learned to
confess. And being made alive and strength-
ened, they went to the judgment seat to be
again interrogated by the governor ; God, who
desires not the death of the sinner,^ but merci-
fully invites to repentance, treating them
47 with kindness. For Caesar commanded that
they should be put to death, ^"^ but that any
who might deny should be set free. Therefore,
at the beginning of the public festivaP^ which
took place there, and which was attended by
crowds of men from all nations, the governor
brought the blessed ones to the judgment seat,
to make of them a show and spectacle for the
multitude. Wherefore also he examined them
again, and beheaded those who appeared to pos-
sess Roman citizenship, but he sent the others
to the wild beasts.
48 " And Christ was glorified greatly in those
who had formerly denied him, for, contrary
to the expectation of the heathen, they con-
fessed. For they were examined by themselves,
8* u><; veKpoix; fffVpuae. Compare § ii, above.
"" Ezck. xxxiii. ii.
^ aL-noTvix.TTavi(jSiiva.i.. The word means literally "beaten to
death," but it is plain that it is used in a general sense here, from the
fact that some were beheaded and some sent to the wild beasts, as
we are told just beU)w.
■" Renan {Marc Aurele, p. 329) identifies this with the meeting
of the general assembly of the Gallic nations, which took place
annually in the month of August for the celebration of tlie worship
of Augustus, and was attended with imposing ceremonies, games,
contests, &c. The identification is not at all improbable.
as about to be set free ; but confessing, they
were added to the order of the witnesses. But
some continued without, who had never pos-
sessed a trace of faith, nor any apprehension of
the wedding garment,^ nor an understanding of
the fear of God ; but, as sons of perdition, they
blasphemed the Way through their apostasy.
But all the others were added to the 49
Church. While these were being exam-
ined, a certain Alexander, a Phrygian by birth,
and physician by profession, who had resided in
Gaul for many years, and was well known to
all on account of his love to God and boldness
of speech (for he was not without a share of
apostolic grace), standing before the judgment
seat, and by signs encouraging them to confess,
appeared to those standing by as if in tra-
vail. But the people being enraged be- 50
cause those who formerly denied now
confessed, cried out against Alexander as if he
were the cause of this. Then the governor
summoned him and inquired who he was. And
when he answered that he was a Christian, being
very angry he condemned him to the wild
beasts. And on the next day he entered along
with Attalus. For to please the people, the
governor had ordered Attalus again to the
wild beasts. And they were tortured in 51
the amphitheater with all the instruments
contrived for that purpose, and having endured
a very great conflict, were at last sacrificed.
Alexander neither groaned nor murmured in
any manner, but communed in his heart
with God. But when Attalus was placed in 52
the iron seat, and the fumes arose from his
burning body, he said to the people in the
Roman language : * Lo ! this which ye do is
devouring men ; but we do not devour men ;
nor do any other wicked thing.' And being
asked, what name God has, he replied, ' God
has not a name as man has.'
" After all these, on the last day of the 53
contests, Blandina was again brought in, with
Ponticus, a boy about fifteen years old. They
had been brought every day to witness the suf-
ferings of the others, and had been pressed to
swear by the idols. But because they remained
steadfast and despised them, the multitude be-
came fiirious, so that they had no compassion for
the youth of the boy nor respect for the sex of
the woman. Therefore they exjjosed them 54
to all the terrible sufferings and took them
through the entire round of torture, rejicatcdly
urging them to swear, but being unable to effect
this ; for Ponticus, encouraged by his sister so
that even the heathen could see that she was
confirming and strengthening him, having no-
bly endured every torture, gave up the ghost.
38 Cf. Matt. x.\ii. II.
V. 2.]
THE PERSECUTION AT LYONS.
217
55 But the blessed Rlandina, last of all, having,
as a noble mother, encouraged her children
and sent them before her victorious to the King,
endured herself all their conflicts and hastened
after them, glad and rejoicing in her departure
as if called to a marriage supper, rather than
56 cast to wild beasts. And, after the scourg-
ing, after the wild beasts, after the roast-
ing seat,^ she was finally enclosed in a net, and
thrown before a bull. And having been tossed
about by the animal, but feeling none of the
things which were happening to her, on account
of her hope and firm hold upon what had been
! entrusted to her, and her communion with
Christ, she also was sacrificed. And the heathen
themselves confessed that never among them
had a woman endured so many and such terrible
tortures.
57 *' But not even thus was their madness
and cruelty toward the saints satisfied. For,
incited by the Wild Beast, wild and barbarous
tribes were not easily appeased, and their vio-
lence found another peculiar opportunity in
58 the dead bodies.''" For, through their lack
of manly reason, the fact that they had been
conquered did not put them to shame, but rather
the more enkindled their wrath as that of a wild
beast, and aroused alike the hatred of governor
and people to treat us unjustly ; that the Scrip-
ture might be fulfilled : ' He that is lawless, let
him be lawless still, and he that is righteous,
59 let him be righteous still.' ''^ For they cast
to the dogs those who had died of suffoca-
tion in the prison, carefully guarding them by
night and day, lest any one should be buried by
us. And they exposed the remains left by the
wild beasts and by fire, mangled and charred,
and placed the heads of the others by their
bodies, and guarded them in like manner from
burial by a watch of soldiers for many days.
60 And some raged and gnashed their teeth
against them, desiring to execute more se-
vere vengeance upon them ; but others laughed
and mocked at them, magnifying their own
idols, and imputed to them the punishment of
the Christians. Even the more reasonable, and
those who had seemed to sympathize somewhat,
reproached them often, saying, ' Where is their
God, and what has their religion, which they
have chosen rather than life, profited them ? '
61 So various was their conduct toward us ; but
we were in deep affliction because we could
3' Tijyavov: literally, "frying-pan," by which, however, is evi-
dently meant the instrument of torture spoken of already more than
once in this chapter as an iron seat or chair.
*" The Christians were very solicitous about the bodies of the
martyrs, and were especially anxious to give them decent burial,
and to preserve the memory of their graves as places of peculiar re-
ligious interest and sanctity. They sometimes went even to the
length of bribing the officials to give them the dead bodies (cf § 6x,
below).
*' Rev. xxii. 11. The citation of the Apocalypse at this date as
Scripture (c^'a ij ypat^rj TrArjpwflg) is noteworthy.
not bury the bodies. For neither did night avail
us for this purpose, nor did money persuade, nor
entreaty move to compassion ; but they kept
watch in every way, as if the prevention of the
burial would be of some great advantage to
them."
In addition, they say after other things :
" The bodies of the martyrs, having thus 62
in every manner been exhibited and ex-
posed for six days, were afterward burned and
reduced to ashes, and swept into the Rhone
by the wicked men, so that no trace of
them might appear on the earth. And this 63
they did, as if able to conquer God, and
prevent their new birth ; ' that,' as they said,
' they may have no hope of a resurrection,^^
through trust in which they bring to us this
foreign and new religion, and despise terrible
things, and are ready even to go to death with
joy. Now let us see if they will rise again, and
if their God is able to help them, and to deliver
them out of our hands.' "
CHAPTER II.
The Martyrs, beloved of God, kindly ministered
unto those who fell in the Persecution.
Such things happened to the churches 1
of Christ under the above-mentioned em-
peror,^ from which we may reasonably conjec-
ture the occurrences in the other provinces. It
is proper to add other selections from the same
letter, in which the moderation and compassion
of these witnesses is recorded in the following
words :
" They were also so zealous in their imi- 2
tation of Christ, — ' who, being in the form
of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equal-
ity with God,' ^ — that, though they had attained
such honor, and had borne witness, not once or
twice, but many times, — having been brought
back to prison from the wild beasts, covered
with burns and scars and wounds, — yet they
did not proclaim themselves witnesses, nor did
they suffer us to address them by this name.
If any one of us, in letter or conversation,
spoke of them as witnesses, they rebuked him
*- These words show us how much emphasis the Christians of that
day must have laid upon the resurrection of the body (an emphasis
which is abundantly evident from other sources), and in what a
sensuous and material way they must have taught the doctrine, or
at least how unguarded their teaching must have been, which could
lead the heathen to think that they could in the slightest impede the
resurrection by such methods as they pursued. The Christians, in
so far as they laid so much emphasis as they did upon the material
side of the doctrine, and were so solicitous about the burial of their
brethren, undoubtedly were in large part responsible for this gross
misunderstanding on the part of the heathen.
1 Namely, Antoninus Verus (in reality Marcus Aurelius, but
wrongly distinguished by Eusebius from him), mentioned above in
the Introduction. Upon Eusebius' separation of Marcus Aurelius
and Antoninus Verus, see below, p. 390, note.
2 Phil. ii. 6.
2l8
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 2.
3 sharply. For they conceded cheerfully the
api^ellation of Witness to Christ ' the faithful
and true Witness,' ^ and ' firstborn of the dead,' *
and prince of the life of God ; ^ and they re-
minded us of the witnesses who had already
departed, and said, ' They are already witnesses
whom Christ has deemed worthy to be taken up
in their confession, having sealed their testimony
by their departure ; but we are lowly and hum-
ble confessors.' '^ And they besought the breth-
ren with tears that earnest prayers should be
offered that they might be made perfect.'
4 They showed in their deeds the power
of * testimony,' manifesting great boldness
toward all the brethren, and they made plain
their nobility through patience and fearlessness
and courage, but they refused the title of Wit-
nesses as distinguishing them from their breth-
ren,^ being filled with the fear of God."
5 A little farther on they say : " They
humbled themselves under the mighty
hand, by which they are now greatly exalted.'-'
They defended all,^" but accused none. They
absolved all, but bound none." And they
prayed for those who had inflicted cruelties
upon them, even as Stephen, the perfect witness,
' Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.' ^^ But if
he prayed for those who stoned him, how much
more for the brethren !"
6 And again after mentioning other mat-
ters, they say :
" For, through the genuineness of their love,
their greatest contest with him was that the
Beast, being choked, might cast out alive those
whom he supposed he had swallowed. For
they did not boast over the fallen, but helped
them in their need with those things in which
they themselves abounded, having the compas-
sion of a mother, and shedding many tears
7 on their account before the Father. They
asked for life, and he gave it to them, and
they shared it with their neighbors. Victorious
over everything, they departed to God. Having
3 Rev. iii. 14. * Rev. i. 5.
'' ap)(i]yif Tr)i ^w^s toO 9eov. Cf. Rev. iii. 14.
" oii.6\oyoi.. The regular technical terra for " confessor," which
later came into general use, was 6^oAo-y7)Ti)5.
' TcAtttufljji'ai; i.e. be made perfect by martyrdom. For this
use of TtAf loio, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 3, § 13, and chap. 5, § 1 ;
also l!k. VII. chap. 15, § 5, and sec Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v.
8 TTpb? Toi/s d6tA(/>ou?. ** Compare i Pet. v. 6,
1" iraai /u.t'i/ dn'oAoyoOi'TO. Rufinus translates //rtcrti^rt?^/ o;««^.s /
Muscuhis, omnibus rationem Jidei sute reddcbant ; Valesius, otit-
niuin df/ensionein suscipiebant, though he maintains in a note
that the rendering of Musculus, or the translation omnibus se cx-
cnsabant, is more correct. It is true that Troai aTroAoYoOi'TO ought
strictly to mean "apologized to all" rather than "for all," tlie
latter being commonly expressed by the use of i/7rtp willi the geni-
tive (see the lexicons s.v. ajroAo-yto»iat). At the same time, though
it may not be possible to produce any other examples of the use of
the dative, instead of v-nift with the genitive, after a.-noXoyio\xai., it
is clear from the context that it must be accepted in the present
case.
" The question of the readmission of the lapsed had not yet be-
come a burning one. The conduct of the martyrs here in absolving
(eAvov) those who had shown weakness under persecution is similar
to that which caused so much dispute in the Church during and
after the persecution of Dccius. See below, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note i.
^ Acts vii. 60.
always loved peace, and having commended
peace to us,^^ they went in peace to God, leaving
no sorrow to their mother, nor division or strife
to the brethren, but joy and peace and concord
and love."
This record of the affection of those 8
blessed ones toward the brethren that had
fallen may be profitably added on account of
the inhuman and unmerciful disposition of those
who, after these events, acted unsparingly toward
the members of Christ,"
CHAPTER HI.
The Vision which appeared in a Dream to the
Witness Attains.
The same letter of the above-mentioned 1
witnesses contains another account worthy
of remembrance. No one will object to our
bringing it to the knowledge of our readers.
It runs as follows : " For a certain Alci- 2
blades,^ who was one of them, led a very
austere life, partaking of nothing whatever but
bread and water. W^hen he endeavored to con-
tinue this same sort of life in prison, it was
revealed to Attalus after his first conflict in the
amphitheater that Alcibiades was not doing well
in refusing the creatures of God and placing
a stumbling-block before others. And Alci- 3
blades obeyed, and partook of all things
without restraint, giving thanks to God. For
they were not deprived of the grace of God, but
the Holy Ghost was their counselor." Let this
suffice for these matters.
The followers of Montanus,- Alcibiades ^ 4
and Theodotus * in Phrygia were now first
giving wide circulation to their assumption in re-
gard to prophecy, — for the many other miracles
13 rjiaii', which is found in four important ISISS. and in Nice-
phorus, and is supported by Rurtnus and adopted by Slephanus,
Stroth, Burton, and Zimmermann. The majority of the MSS., fol-
lowed by all the other editors, including Heinichen, read dei.
1^ Eusebius refers here to the Novatians, who were so severe in
their treatment of the lapsed, and who in his day were spread very
widely and formed an aggressive and compact organization (see be-
low, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note i).
1 Of this Alcibiades we know only what is told us in this connec-
tion. Doubtless Eusebius found this extract very nuich to his taste,
for we know that he was not inclined to asceticism. The enthusi-
astic spirit of the Lyons Christians comes out strongly in the ex-
tract, and consider.able light is thrown by it upon the state of the
Church there. Imprisoned confessors were never permitted to suffer
for want of food and the other comforts of life so long as their
brethren were allowed access to them. Compare e.g. Lucian's Pere-
grinus Proteus.
- On Montanus and the Montanists, see below, chap. 16 sq.
3 Of this Montanist Alcibiades we know nothing. lie is, of
course, to be distinguished from the confessor mentioned just above.
The majority of the editors of Eusebius substitute his name for that
of Rlilti.ades in chap. 16, below, but the MSS. all read MtATid6»)i', and
the emendation is unwarranted (.see chap. 16, note 7). Salmon sug-
gests that we should read Miltiades instead of Alcibi.ades in the pres-
ent passage, supposing that the latter may have crept in through a
copyist's error, under the influence of the name Alcibiades men-
tioned just above. Such an error is possible, but not probable (see
chap. 16, note 7).
* Of the Montanist Theodotus we know only what is told us here
and in chap. 16, below (see that chapter, note s$)>
V.5.]
STORY OF THE THUNDERING LEGION.
219
that, through the gift of God, were still wrought in
the dilTerent churches caused their })rophesying to
be readily credited by many, — and as dissension
arose concerning them, the brethren in Gaul set
forth their own prudent and most orthodox judg-
ment in the matter, and jHiblished also several
epistles from the witnesses that had been put to
death among them. These they sent, while they
were still in prison, to the brethren throughout
Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus,'"' who
was then bishop of Rome, negotiating for the
peace of the churches."
CHAPTER IV.
IrencBUs commended by the Witnesses in a Letter.
1 The same witnesses also recommended
Irenajus,^ who was already at that time a
presbyter of the parish of Lyons, to the above-
mentioned bishop of Rome, saying many favor-
able things in regard to him, as the following
extract shows :
2 " We pray, father Eleutherus, that you
may rejoice in God in all things and always.
We have requested our brother and comrade
Iren^us to carry this letter to you, and we ask
you to hold him in esteem, as zealous for the
covenant of Christ. For if we thought that office
could confer righteousness upon any one, we
should commend him among the first as a pres-
byter of the church, which is his position."
3 Why should we transcribe the catalogue
5 On Eleutherus, see above, Bk. V. Introd. note 2.
" It is commonly assumed that the Gallic martyrs favored the
Montanists and exhorted Eleutherus to be mild in his judgment of
them, and to preserve the peace of the Church by permitting them
to remain within it and enjoy fellowship with other Christians. But
Salmon (in the Diet, of Christian Biog. III. p. 937) has shown, in
my opinion conclusively, that the Gallic confessors took the oppo-
site side, and exhorted Eleutherus to confirm the Eastern Church in
its condemnation of the Montanists, representing to him that he
would threaten the peace of the Church by refusing to recognize the
justice of the decision of the bishops of the East and by setting
himself in opposition to them. Certainly, with their close connec-
tion with Asia Minor, we should expect the Gallic Christians to be
early informed of the state of affairs in the East, and it is not diffi-
cult to think that they may have formed the same opinion in regard
to the new prophecy which the majority of their brethren there had
formed. The decisive argument for Salmon's opinion is the fact
that Eusebius calls the letter of the Lyons confessors to Eleutherus
"pious and most orthodox." Certainly, looking upon Montanism
as one of the most execrable of heresies and as the work of Satan
himself (cf. his words in chap. 16, below), it is very difficult to sup-
pose that he can have spoken of a letter written expressly in favor
of the Montanists in any such terms of respect. Salmon says: " It
is monstrous to imagine that Eusebius, thinking thus of Montanism,
could praise as pious or orthodox the opinion of men who, ignorant
of Satan's devices, should take the devil's work for God's. The way
in which we ourselves read the history is that the Montanists had
appealed to Rome ; that the Church party solicited the good offices
of their countrymen settled in Gaid, who wrote to Eleutherus repre-
senting the disturbance to the peace of the churches (a phrase prob-
ably preserved by Eusebius from the letter itselQ which would en-
sue if the Roman Church should approve what the Church on the
spot had condemned. . . . To avert, then, the possibility of the
calamity of a breach between the Eastern and Western churches,
the Gallic churches, it would appear, not only wrote, but sent Ire-
naeus to Rome at the end of 177 or the beginning of 178. The hy-
pothesis here made relieves us from the necessity of supposing this
7rp6<T/3eta to have been unsuccessful, while it fully accounts for the
necessity of sending it."
1 On Irenscus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
of the witnesses given in the letter already
mentioned, of whom some were beheaded, others
cast to the wild beasts, and others fell asleep in
prison, or give the number of confessors- still
surviving at that time? For whoever desires
can readily find the full account by consulting
the letter itself, which, as I have said, is recorded
in our Collection of Martyrdoms.^ Such were
the events which happened under Antoninus.^
CHAPTER V.
God sent Rain from Heaven for Marcus Aii-
relius Ccesar in Answer to the Prayers of
our People.
It is reported^ that Marcus Aurelius 1
Caesar, brother of Antoninus,- being about
to engage in battle with the Germans and Sar-
matians, was in great trouble on account of
his army suffering from thirst.' But the sol-
diers of the so-called Melitene legion,^ through
^ oixoKoy-qTuiv. Eusebius here u.ses the common technical term
for confessors; i.e. for those who had been faithful and had suffered
in persecution, but had not lost their lives. In the epistle of the
churches of Lyons and Vienne, the word b/j-oAoyot is used to denote
the same persons (see above, chap. 2, note 6).
^ Cf. § 2 of the Introduction to this book (Bk. V.). On Euse-
bius' Collectioti of Martyrdoms, see above, p. 30.
■* i.e. Antoninus Verus, whom Eusebius expressly distinguishes
from Marcus Aurelius at the beginning of the ne.\t chapter. See
below, p. 390, note.
' The expression Adyo; ex^W employed here by Eusebius, is
ordinarily used by him to denote that the account which he subjoins
rests simply upon verbal testimony. But in the present instance he
has written authority, which he mentions below. He seems, there-
fore, in the indefinite phrase Adyo? ex^'> t" express doubts which he
himself feels as to the trustworthiness of the account which he is
about to give. The story was widely known in his time, and the
Christians' version of it undoubtedly accepted by the Cliristians
themselves with little misgiving, and yet he is too well informed
upon this subject to be ignorant of tlie fact that the common version
rests upon a rather slender foundation. He may have known of
the coins and monuments upon which the emperor had commemo-
rated his own view of the matter, — at any rate he was familiar with
the fact that all the heathen historians contradicted the claims of the
Christians, and hence he could not but consider it a questionable
matter. At the same time, the Christian version of the story was
supported by strong names and was widely accepted, and he, as a
good Christian, of course wished to accept it, if possible, and to
report it for the edification of posterity.
- ToiJTou 6e a6eA(/)6)': the toutou referring to the Antoninus men-
tioned at the close of the previous chapter. Upon Eusebius' confu-
sion of the successors of Antoninus Pius, see below, p. 390, note.
■5 It is an historical fact that, in 174 A.D., the Roman army in
Hungary was relieved from a very dangerous predicament by the
sudden occurrence of a thimder-storm, which quenched their thirst
and frightened the barbarians, and thus gave the Romans the vic-
tory. By heathen writers this event (quite naturally considered
miraculous) was held to have taken place in answer to prayer, but
by no means in answer to the prayers of the Christians. Dion
Cassius (LXXI.8) ascribes the supposed miracle to the conjurations
of the Egyptian magician Arnuphis; Capitolinus {Vita Marc.
Aurelii, cha-p. 24, and p^ita Heiio^afiaii, chap, g), to the prayer of
Marcus Aurelius. The emperor himself expresses his view upon a
coin which represents Jupiter as hurling lightning against the bar-
barians (see Eckhel. Nitinisni. III. 61).
As early as the time of Marcus Aurelius himself the Christians
ascribed the merit of the supposed miracle to their own prayers
(e.g. Apolinarius, mentioned just below), and this became the com-
mon belief among them (cf. Tertullian, Apol. chap. 5, quoted just
below, and ad Scap. chap. 4, and the forged edict of Marcus Aure-
lius, appended to Justin ]\Iartyr's first Apology). It is probable
that the whole legion prayed for deliverance to their respective
deities, and thus quite naturally each party claimed the victory for
its particular gods. That there were some Christians in the army
of Marcus Aurelius there is, of course, no reason to doubt, but that
a legion at that time was wholly composed of Christians, as Euse-
bius implies, is inconceivable.
* This legion was called the Melitene from the place where it was
220
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 5-
the faith which has given strength from that
time to the present, when they were drawn up
before the enemy, kneeled on the ground, as is
our custom in prayer,^ and engaged in sup-
2 pUcations to God. This was indeed a
strange sight to the enemy, but it is re-
ported* that a stranger thing immediately fol-
lowed. The lightning drove the enemy to flight
and destruction, but a shower refreshed the
army of those who had called on God, all of
whom had been on the point of perishing with
thirst.
3 This story is related by non-Christian
writers who have been pleased to treat the
times referred to, and it has also been recorded
by our own people.'' By those historians who
were strangers to the faith, the marvel is men-
tioned, but it is not acknowledged as an an-
swer to our prayers. But by our own people,
as friends of the truth, the occurrence is re-
lated in a simple and artless manner.
4 Among these is Apolinarius,^ who says that
from that time the legion through whose
prayers the wonder took place received from
the emperor a title appropriate to the event,
being called in the language of the Romans
5 the Thundering Legion. Tertullian is a
regularly stationed, — Melitene, a city in Eastern Cappadocia, or
Armenia.
6 Kneeling was the common posture of offering prayer in the
early Church, but the standing posture was by no means uncommon,
especially in the offering of thanksgiving. Upon Sunday and dur-
ing the whole period from Easter to Pentecost all prayers were regu-
l.irly offered in a standing position, as a symbolical expression of
joy (cf. Tertullian, de Corona, chap. 3 ; tie Oratione, chap. 23, &c.) .
The practice, however, was not universal, and was therefore decreed
by the Nicene Council in its twentieth canon (Hefele, Concilien-
gcsch. I. 430). See Kraus' Real-Eticyclopiidie der Chrisilicheti
Altertliiimer, Bd. I. p. 557 sqq.
'' Aoyos f.\ii.. See above, note i.
' Dion Cassius and Capitolinus record the occurrence (as men-
tioned above, note 2). It is recorded also by other writers after
Eusebius' time, such as Claudian and Zonaras. None of them, how-
ever, attribute the occurrence to the prayers of the Christians, but
all claim it for the heathen gods. The only pre-Eusebian Christian
accounts of this event still extant are those contained in the forged
edict of Marcus Aurelius and in the Apology of Tertullian, quoted
just below (cf. also his de Orat. 29). Cyprian also probably refers
to the same event in his Tractat. ad Devictriadem, 20. Eusebius,
in referring to Apolinarius and Tertullian, very likely mentions all
the accounts with which he was acquainted. Gregory Nyssa, Je-
rome, and other later Christian writers refer to the event.
* i.e. Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis. Upon him
and his writings, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 27, note i. This refer-
ence is in all probability to the Apology of Apolinarius, as this is
the only work known to us which would have been likely to contain
an account of such an event. The fact that in the reign of the very
emperor under whom the occurrence took place, and m an Apology
addressed to him, the Christians could be indicated as the source of
the miracle, shows the firmness of this belief among the Christians
themselves, and also proves that they must have been so numerous
in the army as to justify them in setting up a counter-claim over
against the heathen soldiers.
Apolinarius is very far from the truth in his statement as to the
name of the legion. From Dion Cassius, LV. 23, it would seem that
the legion bore this name even in the time of Augustus; but if this
be uncertain, at any rate it bore it as early as the time of Nero (as
we learn from an inscription of his eleventh year, Corp. Ins. Lai.
III. 30). Neander thinks it improbable that Apolinarius, a contem-
porary who lived in the neighborhood of the legion's winter quarters,
could have committed such a mistake. He prefers to think that the
error is Eusebius', and resulted from a too rapid perusal of the pas-
sage in Apolinarius, where there must have stood some sucli words
as, " Now the emperor could with right call the legion the Tliunder-
ing Legion." His opinion is at least plausible. Tertullian certainly
knew nothing of the naming of the legion at this time, or if hie had
heard the report, rejected it.
trustworthy witness of these things. In the
Apology for the Faith, which he addressed to
the Roman Senate, and which work we have
already mentioned,^ he confirms the history
with greater and stronger proofs. He 6
writes ^" that there are still extant letters "
of the most intelligent Emperor Marcus in which
he testifies that his army, being on the point of
perishing with thirst in Germany, was saved by
the prayers of the Christians. And he says
also that this emperor threatened death ■^- to
those who brought accusation against us.
He adds further : ^^ 7
" What kind of laws are those which im-
pious, unjust, and cruel persons use against us
alone? which Vespasian, though he had con-
quered the Jews, did not regard ; ^^ which Tra-
jan partially annulled, forbidding Christians to
be sought after ; '^ which neither Adrian, ^"^ though
inquisitive in all matters, nor he who was called
Pius^'^ sanctioned." But let any one treat these
things as he chooses ; ^^ we must pass on to what
followed.
Pothinus having died with the other mar- 8
tyrs in Gaul at ninety years of age,^^ Irenseus
succeeded him in the episcopate of the church
at Lyons.^" We have learned that, in his
youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp.-^ In the 9
third book of his work Against Heresies he
has inserted a list of the bishops of Rome, bring-
ing it down as far as Eleutherus (whose times
we are now considering), under whom he com-
posed his work. He writes as follows : ^-
'■> In Bk. II. chap. 2, § 4, and Bk. III. chap. 33, § 3 (quoted also
in Bk. III. chap. 20, § g).
'" Apol. chap. 5.
'1 A pretended epistle of Marcus Aurelius, addressed to the Sen-
ate, in which he describes the miraculous deliverance of his army
through the prayers of the Christians, is still extant, and stands at
the close of Justin Martyr's first Apology. It is manifestly the
work of a Christian, and no one now thinks of accepting it as genu-
ine. It is in all probability the same epistle to which Tertullian
refers, and therefore must have been forged before the end of the
second century, although its exact date cannot be determined. See
Overbeck, Studien znr Gcsch. d. alien Kirdic, I.
'- The epistle says that the accuser is to be burned alive (ftui'Tn
KaietrOai). Tertullian simply says that he is to be punished with
a "condemnation of greater severity" {damnatione et giiidrin
tetriorc). Eusebius therefore expresses himself more definitely than
Tertullian, though it is very likely that the poor Greek translation
which he used had already made of damnatio tetrior the simpler
and more telling expression, Savaro?.
'■■' Apol. ibid.
1^ See Bk. III. chap. 12, note i.
'•' Upon Trajan's rescript, and the universal misunderstanding
of it in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 33 (notes).
"' Upon Hadrian's treatment of the Christians, see above, Bk.
IV. chap. 9.
" Upon Antoninus Pius' relation to them, see above, Bk. IV.
chap. 13.
" Whether Eusebius refers in this remark only to the report of
Tertullian, or to the entire account of the miracle, we do not know.
The remark certainly has reference at least to the words of Tertul-
lian. Eusebius h.id apparently not himself seen the epistle of Mar-
cus Aurelius; for in the first place, he does not cite it; secondly, he
does not rest his accoimt upon it, but upon Apolinarius and Ter-
tullian; and thirdly,, in his C/:^fl«. both the Armenian and Greek
say, " it is said that there are epistles of Marcus Aurelius extant,"
while Jerome says directly, " there are letters extant."
t'-" See above, chap, i, § 29.
2" Upon Irena;us, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
'-' Cf. Adv. Ht£r. II. 3. 4, &c., and Eusebius, chap. 20, below,
" Adv. Hier. III. 3. 3.
\
V. 7-]
IREN/EUS' CATALOGUE OF ROMAN BISHOPS.
221
CHAPTER VI.
Cataiogi/e of the Bishops of Rome.
1 "The blessed apostles^ having founded
and established the church, entrusted the
office of the episcopate to Linus." Paul speaks
of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy."
2 Anencletus * succeeded him, and after An-
encletus, in the third place from the apos-
tles, Clement^ received the episcopate. He had
seen and conversed with the blessed apostles,*'
and their preaching was still sounding in his
ears, and their tradition was still before his eyes.
Nor was he alone in this, for many who had
been taught by the apostles yet survived.
3 In the times of Clement, a serious dissen-
sion having arisen among the brethren in
Corinth," the church of Rome sent a most suit-
able letter to the Corinthians,^^ reconciling them
in peace, renewing their faith, and proclaim-
ing^ the doctrine lately received from the
apostles." ^"
4 A little farther on he says : "
" Evarestus ^- succeeded Clement, and
Alexander,^^ Evarestus. Then Xystus," the sixth
from the apostles, was appointed. After him
Telesphorus,'"' who suffered martyrdom glori-
ously ; then Hyginus ; ^^ then Pius ; ^" and after
him Anicetus ; ^^ Soter ^^ succeeded Anicetus ;
and now, in the twelfth place from the apostles,
Eleutherus^ holds the office of bishop.
5 In the same order and succession ^^ the
I Namely, Peter and Paul; but neither of them founded the
Roman church. See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.
- On Linus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 2, note i; and for the
succession of the early Roman bishops, see the same note.
3 2 Tim. iv. 21.
■» On Anencletus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3.
' On Clement, see above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19.
6 Although the identification of this Clement with the one men-
tioned in Phil. iv. 3 is more than doubtful, yet there is no reason to
doubt that, living as he did in the first century at Rome, he was
personally acquainted at least with the apostles Peter and Paul.
' See the Epistle of Clement itself, especially chaps, i and 3.
8 Upon the epistle, see above, Bk. III. chap._ 16, note i.
^ av^o\)(Ta Tr]V Trttrrti' avrCjv Kai ijf I'ecuo'Tt anh Tojt' aTroffToAojf
napdSoa-LV ei\>;ij><ri. The last word being in the singular, the tradi-
tion must be that received by the Roman, not by the Corinthian
church (as it is commonly understood), and hence it is necessary
to supply some verb which shall govern TrapaSocriv, for it is at least
very harsh to say that the Roman church, in its epistle to the
Corinthians " renewed " the faith which I'i had received. The truth
is, that both in Rufinus and in Irenaeus an extra participle is found
(in the former expriincns, in the latter anniintiaiis) , and Stroth
has in consequence ventured to insert the word KarayyeAovcra in his
text. I have likewise, for the sake of the sense, inserted the word
proclai>ning, not thereby intending to imply, however, the belief
that Karayyt-Aoucra stood in the original text of Eusebius.
'" It is interesting to notice how strictly Eusebius carries out
his principle of taking historical matter wherever he can find it, but
of omitting all doctrinal statements and discussions. The few sen-
tences which follow in Irenseus are of a doctrinal nature, and in the
form of a brief polemic against Gnosticism.
II Ibid.
1- Upon Evarestus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.
13 Upon Alexander, see Bk. IV. chap, i, note 4.
" Upon Xystus, see IV. 4, note 3.
'5 Upon Telesphorus, see IV. 5, note 13.
iG Upon Hyginus, see IV. 10, note 3.
1' Upon Pius, see IV. 11, note 14.
1' Upon Anicetus, see IV. 11, note 18.
18 Upon Soter, see IV. ig, note 2.
^^ Upon Eleutherus, see Introd. to this book, note 2.
21 5ia£oxi7, which is confirmed by the ancient Latin version of
tradition in the Church and the preaching of
the truth has descended from the apostles unto
us."
CHAPTER VII.
Even i/oivn (o /hose Times Miracles were per-
formed by the Faithful.
These things Irenajus, in agreement with 1
the accounts already given by us,^ records
in the work which com])rises five books, and to
which he gave the title Refutation and Over-
throw of the Knowledge Falsely So-called.^ In
the second book of the same treatise he shows
that manifestations of divine and miraculous
power continued to his time in some of the
churches. He says : ^ 2
" But so far do they come short of rais-
ing the dead, as the Lord raised them, and the
apostles through prayer. And oftentimes in the
brotherhood, when, on account of some neces-
sity, our entire Church has besought with fasting
and much supplication, the spirit of the dead
has returned,* and the man has been restored
through the prayers of the saints."
And again, after other remarks, he says : ^ 3
Irenseus {sitccesszone), and which is adopted by Zimmermann,
Heinichen, and Valesius (in his notes). All the MSS. of Eusebius,
followed by the majority of the editors, read SiSaxj), which, how-
ever, makes no sense in this place, and can hardly have been the
original reading (see Heinichen' s note in loco).
1 In the various passages referred to in the notes on the previous
chapter.
- eAeY;^ov Kai avarpOTr^? T^9 i//eu5cui'iJ/jL0V YruJcreto? (cf. I Tim.
vi. 2o). This work of Irenaeus, which is commonly known under
its Latin title, Adversns Hcereses {Agaittst Heresies), is still
extant in a barbarous Latin version, of which we possess three MSS.
The original Greek is lost, though a great part of the first book can
be recovered by means of extensive quotations made from it by Hip-
polytus and Epiphanius. The work is directed against the various
Gnostic systems, among which that of Valentinus is chiefly attacked.
The first book is devoted to a statement of their doctrines, the sec-
ond to a refutation of them, and the remaining three to a presenta-
tion of the true doctrines of Christianity as opposed to the false
positions of the Gnostics. The best edition of the original is that of
Harvey: S. Irencei libros quitujue adv. Hcereses., Cambr. 1857,
2 vols.; English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 309 ft.
For the literature of the subject, see Schaff, II. p. 746 ff. On Ire-
naeus himself, see Book IV. chap. 21, note 9.
3 Ad'!'. Hirr. II. 31. 2. The sentence as it stands in Eusebius
is incomplete. Irenaeus is refuting the pretended miracles of Simon
and Carpocrates. The passage runs as follows: " So far are they
[i.e. Simon and Carpocrates] from being able to raise the dead as
the Lord raised them and as the apostles did by means of prayer,
and as has been frequently done in the brotherhood on account of
some necessity — the entire Church in that locality entreating with
much fasting and prayer [so that] the spirit of the dead man has
returned, and he has been bestowed in answer to the prayer of the
saints — that they do not even believe this can possibly be done,
[and hold] that the resurrection from the dead is simply an acquaint-
ance with that truth which they proclaim."
This resurrection of the dead recorded by Irenaeus is very diffi-
cult to explain, as he is a truth-loving man, and we can hardly con-
ceive of his uttering a direct falsehood. Even Augustine, "the iron
man of truth," records such miracles, and so the early centuries
are full of accounts of them. The Protestant method of drawing
a line between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages in this matter
of miracles is arbitrary, and based upon dogmatic, not histoncal
grounds. The truth is, that no one can fix the point of time at
which miracles ceased; at the same time, it is easy to appreciate the
difference between the apostolic age and the third, fourth, and follow-
ing centuries in this regard. That they did cease at an early date
in the history of the Churcli is clear enough. Upon post-apostolic
miracles, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 116 AT., J. H. Newman's Tivo
Essays on Biblical and Eccles. Miracles, and J. B. Mozley's
Bampton lectures On Miracles.
* See the previous note. *■ Adv. Htsr. II. 32. 4.
222
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[v. 7.
" If they will say that even the Lord did these
things in mere appearance, we will refer them
to the prophetic writings, and show from them
that all things were beforehand spoken of him
in this manner, and were strictly fulfilled ; and
that he alone is the Son of God. ^Vherefore his
true disciples, receiving grace from him, perform
such works in his Name for the benefit of other
men, as each has received the gift from
4 him. For some of them drive out demons
effectually and truly, so that those who have
been cleansed from evil spirits frequently believe
and unite with the Church. Others have a fore-
knowledge of future events, and visions, and
prophetic revelations. Still others heal the sick
by the laying on of hands, and restore them to
health. And, as we have said, even dead per-
sons have been raised, and remained with
5 us many years. But why should we say
more? It is not possible to recount the
number of gifts which the Church, throughout
all tlie world, has received from God in the
name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under
Pontius Pilate, and exercises every day for the
benefit of the heathen, never deceiving any nor
doing it for money. For as she has received
freely from God, freely also does she minis-
ter."«
6 And in another place the same author
writes : "
" As also we hear that many brethren in the
Church possess prophetic gifts, and speak,
through the Spirit, with all kinds of tongues, and
bring to light the secret things of men for their
good, and declare the mysteries of God."
So much in regard to the fact that various
gifts remained among those who were worthy
even until that time.
CHAPTER VIII.
The State fnents of Irenceus in regard to the Di-
vine Scriptures.
1 Since, in the beginning of this work,^
we promised to give, when needful, the
words of the ancient presbyters and writers of
the Church, in which they have declared those
traditions which came down to them concerning
the canonical books, and since Irenasus was one
of them, we will now give his words and, first,
what he says of the sacred Gospels : ^
2 "Matthew published his Gospel among
« Cf. Matt. X. 8. ' Ad7'. Ha-r. V. 6. i.
' Kiisebius is apparently thinking of the preface to his work con-
tained in Bk. I. chap, i, but there he makes no such promise as he
refers to here. He speaks only of his general purpose to mention
those men who preached the divine word either orally or in writing.
In Bk. III. chaj). 3, however, he distinctly promises to do what he
here speaks of doing, and perhaps remcuibercd only that he had
made such a promise without recalling where he had made it.
2 Ad-v. Hur. III. I. 1.
the Hebrews in their own language,^ while
Peter and Paul were preaching and found-
ing the church in Rome.^ After their de- 3
parture Mark, the disciple and interpreter
of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those
things which Peter had preached ; ^ and Luke,
the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book
the Gospel which Paul had declared.^ After- 4
wards John, the disciple of the Lord, who
also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel,
while staying at Ephesus in Asia."^
He states these things in the third book 5
of his above-mentioned work. In the fifth
book he speaks as follows concerning the Apoc-
alypse of John, and the number of the name of
Antichrist : ^
"As these things are so, and this num-
ber is found in all the approved and ancient
copies,^ and those who saw John face to face
confirm it, and reason teaches us that the num-
ber of the name of the beast, according to the
mode of calculation among the Greeks, aj^pears
in its letters. . . ,"^°
And farther on he says concerning the 6
same
. u
" We are not bold enough to speak confidently
of the name of Antichrist. For if it were neces-
sary that his name should be declared clearly at
the present time, it would have been announced
by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen,
not long ago, but almost in our generation,
toward the end of the reign of Domitian."^'
He states these things concerning the 7
Apocalypse '^ in the work referred to. He
also mentions the first Epistle of John,^'' taking
^ See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5. Irena;us, in this chapter
traces the four Gospels back to the apostles themselves, but he is
unable to say that Matthew translated his Gospel into Greek, which
is of course bad for his theory, as the Matthew Gospel which the
Church of his time had was in Greek, not in Hebrew. He puts the
Hebrew Gospel, however, upon a par with the three Greek ones,
and thus, although he does not say it directly, endeavors to convey
the impression that the apostolicity of the Hebrew Matthew is a
guarantee for the Greek Matthew also. Of Papias' statement,
" Each one translated the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as he was
able," he could of course make no use even if he was acquainted
with it. Whether his account was dependent upon Papias' or not
we cannot tell. ■• See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.
'' See above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
" See above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 15.
' See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note i.
* Irena;us, Adv. Hier. V. 30. i.
" Rev. xiii. 18. Already in Irenjeus' time there was a variation
in the copies of the Apocalypse. This is interesting as showing the
existence of old copies of the Apocalypse even in his time, anil also
as showing how early works became corrupted in the course of
transmission. Wc learn from his words, too, that textual criticism
had already begun.
'" The sentence as Eusebius quotes it here is incomplete; he
repeats only so much of it as suits his purpose. Irenajus completes
his sentence, after a few more dependent clauses, by s.iying, " I
do not know how it is that some have erred, following the ordinary
mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name,"
&c. This shows that even in Irenaeus' time there was as much
controversy about the interpretation of the Apocalypse as there has
always been, anrl that at tliat day exegetes were as a rule in no
better position than we arc. Irena;us refers in this sentence to the
fact that the Greek numerals were indicated by the letters of the
alphabet: Alpha, " one," Beta, " two," &c.
" i.e. concerning the Beast or Antichrist. Irenaeus, .(4 </z'. Hter.
V. 30. 3; quoted also in Bk. III. chap. 18, above.
'- See above, Bk. III. chap. 18, note t.
'3 Upon the Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.
" In Adv. Utrr. III. 16. 5, 8. Irensens also quotes from the
V. 8.]
IREN/EUS ON THE SCRIPTURES.
223
many proofs from it, and likewise the first Epistle
of Peter.''"' And he not only knows, but also re-
ceives. The Shepherd,"' writing as follows : ''
" Well did the Scripture '** speak, saying,^''
' First of all believe that God is one, who has
created and comi^leted all things,' " i^'C.
8 And he uses almost the precise words of
the Wisdom of Solomon, saying : "" " The
vision of God produces immortality, but im-
mortality renders us near to God." He men-
tions also the memoirs-^ of a certain apostolic
presbyter,^- whose name he passes by in silence,
and gives his expositions of the sacred
9 Scriptures. And he refers to Justin the
Martyr,-'' and to Ignatius,-^ using testimo-
nies also from their writings. Moreover, he
promises to refute Marcion from his own writ-
ings, in a special work."'
10 Concerning the translation of the in-
spired'-'^ Scriptures by the Seventy, hear
the very words which he writes : "^
" God in truth became man, and the Lord
himself saved us, giving the sign of the virgin ;
second Epistle of John, without distinguishing it from the first, in
III. 16. 8, and I. 16. 3. Upon John's epistles, see Bk. III. chap.
24, notes 18 and ig.
'•'• In Athi. Href. IV. g. 2. In IV. 16. 5 and V. 7. 2 he quotes
from the first Epistle of Peter, with the formula " Peter says." He
is the first one to connect the epistle with Peter. See above, Bk.
III. chap. 3, note i.
"■ i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas; see above, Bk. III. chap. 3,
note 23.
^'' Adv. Hief. IV. 20. 2.
'8 r\ ypa<)>ri, the regular word used in quoting Scripture. Many
of the Fathers of the second and third centuries used this word in
referring to Clement, Hermas, Barnabas, and other works of the kind
(compare especially Clement of Ale.\andria's use of the word).
" The Shepherd of Hermas, II. i.
20 Adv. Hier. IV. 38. 3. Irenaeus in this passage quotes freely
from the apocryphal Book of Wisdom, VI. ig, without mentioning
the source of his quotation, and indeed without in any way indicat-
ing the fact that he is quoting.
-I d7ro^i'))^ioi'6i);u.fiTcoi'. Written memoirs are hardly referred to
here, but rather oral comments, expositions, or accounts of the inter-
pretations of the apostles and others of the first generation of Chris-
tians.
2* Adv. Hcer, IV. 27. i, where Irenseus mentions a " certain
presbyter who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles,"
&c. Who this presbyter was cannot be determined. Polycarp, Pa-
pias, and others have been suggested, but we have no grounds upon
which to base a decision, though we may perhaps safely conclude
that so prominent a man as Polycarp would hardly have been re-
ferred to in such an indefinite way ; and Papias seems ruled out by
the fact that the presbyter is here not made a hearer of the apostles
themselves, while in V. 33. 4 Papias is expressly stated to have been
a hearer of John, — undoubtedly in Irenaeus' mind the evangelist
John (see above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 4). Other anonymous
authorities under the titles, " One superior to us," " One before us,"
&c., are quoted by Irenaeus in Prcef. § 2, I. 13. 3, III. 17. 4, etc.
See Routh, Rel. Sacree, I. 45-68.
2^ In Adv. Hier. IV. 6. 2, where he mentions Justin Martyr and
quotes from his work Ag'aiust H/arczoa (see Eusebiiis, Bk. IV.
chap. 18), and also in Adv. Hcer. V. 26. 2, where he mentions him
again by name and quotes from some unknown work (but see above,
ibid, note 15).
-* Irenaeus nowhere mentions Ignatius by name, but in V. 28. 4
he quotes from his epistle to the Romans, chap. 4, under the formula,
" A certain one of our people said, when he was condemned to the
wild beasts." It is interesting to note how diligently Eusebius had
read the works of Irenseus, and extracted from them all that could
contribute to his History.
Upon Ignatius, see above, III. 36.
2^ Adv. Hcer. I. 27. 4, III. 12. 12. This promise was appar-
ently never fulfilled, as we hear nothing of the work from any of
Irenaeus' successors. But in Bk. IV. chap. 25 Eusebius speaks of
Irenaeus as one of those who had written against Marcion, whether
in this referring to his special work promised here, or only to his
general work Adv. Hcer., we cannot tell.
2« Oio-nvivajtav, *' Adv. Hcer, III. 21. i.
but not as some say, who now venture to trans-
late the Scripture, ' Behold, a young woman
shall conceive and bring forth a son,' '-"* as Theo-
dotion of ICphesus and Aquila of Pontus,-"-' both of
them Jewish proselytes, interpreted ; following
whom, the Ebionites say '"' that he was begotten
by Joseph."
Shortly after he adds : 11
" For before the Romans had established
their empire, while the Macedonians were still
holding Asia, Ptolemy, the son of Lagus,"' being
desirous of adorning the library which he had
founded in Alexandria with the meritorious writ-
ings of all men, requested the people of Jerusa-
lem to have their Scriptures translated into
the Greek language. But, as they were 12
then subject to the Macedonians, they sent
to Ptolemy seventy elders, who were the most
skilled among them in the Scriptures and in
both languages. Thus God accomplished his
purpose.^- But wishing to try them individ- 13
28 Isa. vii. 14. The original Hebrew has T[uT')3, which means
T ; -
simply a "young woman," not distinctively a "virgin." The
LXX, followed by Matt. i. 23, wrongly translated by ■nap9ii'o<;,
"virgin" (cf. Toy's Quotations in the iVe7u Testament, p. i sqq.,
and the various commentaries on Matthew). Theodotion and
Aquila translated the Hebrew word by reai'is, which is the correct
rendering, in spite of what Irenaeus says. The complete depend-
ence of the Fathers upon the LXX, and their consequent errors as
to the meaning of the original, are well illustrated in this case (cf.
also Justin's Dial. chap. 71).
-'■> This is the earliest direct reference to the translations of
Aquila and Theodotion, though Hermas used the version of the
latter, as pointed out by Hort (see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23).
Upon the two versions, see Bk. VI. chap. 16, notes 3 and 5.
^'^ Upon the Ebionites and their doctrines, see P>k. III. chap. 27.
3' Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, or Ptolemy Soter (the Preserver),
was king of Egypt from 323-285 (2S3) B.C.
The following story m regard to the origin of the LXX is first
told in a spurious letter (probably dating from the first century B.C.),
which professes to have been written by Aristeas, a high officer at
the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285[283]-247 B.C.). This epistle
puts the origin of the LXX in the reign of the latter monan h
instead of in that of his father, Ptolemy Soter, and is followed in this
by Philo, Josephus, TertuUian, and most of the other ancient writ-
ers (Justin Martyr calls the king simply Ptolemy, while Clement of
Alex, says that some connect the event with the one monarch,
others with the other). The account given in the letter (which
is printed by Gallandius, BiH. Pntr. II. 771, as well as in many
other editions) is repeated over and over again, with greater or
less variations, by early Jewish and Christian writers (e.g. by Philo,
I'it. Mos. 2; by Josephus, W;/<. XII. 2; by Justin Martyr, ^/<V.
I. 31; by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I. 22; by TertuUian, Apol.
18, and others; see the article Aristeas in Smith's Diet, of Greek
and Roman Biog.). It gives the number of the elders as seventy-
two, — six from each tribe. That this marvelous tale is a fiction is
clear enough, but whether it is based upon a groundwork of fact is
disputed (see Schiirer, Gesch. dcr Jitdcn im Zcitalter Jesic
Christi, II. p. 697 sqq.). It is at any rate certain that the Penta-
teuch (the original account applies only to the Pentateuch, but
later it was extended to the entire Old Testament) was translated into
Greek in Alexandria as early as the third century B.C. ; whether
under Ptolemy Philadelphus, and at his desire, we cannot tell. The
translation of the remainder of the Old Testament followed during
the second century B.C., the books being translated at various times
by unknown authors, but all or most of them probably in Egypt
(see Schiirer, ibid.). It was, of course, to the interest of the Chris-
tians to maintain the miraculous origin of the LXX, for otherwise
they would have to yield to the attacks of the Jews, who often taunted
them with having only a translation of the Scriptures. Accept-
ing the miraculous origm of the LXX, the Christians, on the other
hand, could accuse the Jews of falsifying their Hebrew copies
wherever they differed from the LXX, making the latter the only
authoritative standard (cf. Justin Martyr's Dial. chap. 71, and
many other passages in the work) . Upon the attitude of the Chris-
tians, and the earlier and later attitude of the Jews toward the LXX,
see below, Bk. VI. chap. 16, note 8.
32 TTODJcrai'TO? ToO Qiov OTrep i7|3ou'AeTO. This is quite different
from the text of Irenaeus, which xe'iAsfacturos hoc quod ipse vobi-
isset (implying that the original Greek was Troi^tro^'Tas roiiTo on-ep
224
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 8.
ually, as he feared lest, by taking counsel
together, they might conceal the truth of the
Scriptures by their interpretation, he separated
them from one another, and commanded all of
them to write the same translation;''^' He
14 did this for all the books. But when they
came together in the presence of Ptolemy,
and compared their several translations, God
was glorified, and the Scriptures were recognized
as truly divine. For all of them had rendered
the same things in the same words and with the
same names from beginning to end, so that the
heathen perceived that the Scriptures had been
translated by the inspiration ''^ of God.
15 And this was nothing wonderful for God
to do, who, in the captivity of the people
under Nebuchadnezzar, when the Scriptures had
been destroyed, and the Jews had returned to
their own country after seventy years, afterwards,
in the time of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians,
inspired Ezra the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to
relate all the words of the former prophets,
and to restore to the people the legislation of
Moses." ^
Such are the words of Irenseus.
CHAPTER IX.
The Bishops under Commodus.
After Antoninus ^ had been emperor for nine-
teen years, Commodus received the govern-
ment.- In his first year Julian ^ became bishop
of the Alexandrian churches, after Agrippinus ■*
had held the office for twelve years.
i^SouAcTo), "to carry out what he [viz. Ptolemy] had desired."
Heinichen modifies the text of Eusebius somewhat, substituting
jrot^ffoi'Ta? rd for ■noi.i\aa.vjo<i toO, but there can be little doubt that
Eusebius originally wrote the sentence in the form given at the
beginning of this note. That Irenaius wrote it in that form, how-
ever, is uncertain, though, in view of the fact that Clement of Alex.
{Strom. I. 22) confirms the reading of Eusebius (reading OcoO yap
i\v ^oOAr)/ia), I am inclined to think that the text of Eusebius repre-
sents the original more closely than the text of the Latin translation
of Irenxus does. Most of the editors, however, both of Eusebius
and of Irena;us, take the other view (cf. Harvey's note in his edition
of Irenajus, Vol. II. p. 113).
■'■' Tr/i- a.\nT)v ipij.rivti.av ypa.(j>eiv, as the majority of the MSS.,
followed by I'urton and most other editors, read. .Stroth, Zimmer-
mann, and Heinichen, on the authority of Rufinus and of the Latin
version of Iren.xus, read, t>j>' aiiT'r}v ipfiriviveiv ypatftriv.
■^ Kar iTTiTTfOiav.
•'"' This tradition, which was commonly accepted until the time
of the Reformation, dates from the first Christian century, for it is
found in the fourth book of Ezra (xiv. 44). It is there said that
Ezra was inspired to dictate to five men, during forty days, ninety-
four books, of which twenty-four (the canonical books) were to
be published. The tradition is repeated quite frecjuently by the
Fathers, but that Ezra formed the Old Testament canon is impossi-
ble, for some of the books were not written until after his day. The
truth is, it was a gradual growth and was not completed until the
second century B.C. See above, Bk. III. chap. 10, note i.
' i.e. Marcus Aurclius. See below, p. 390, note.
2 March 17, 180 a.u.
' Of this Julian we know nothing except what is told us by
Eusebius here and in chap. 22, below, where he is said to have held
office ten years. In the Chroii. he is also said to have been bishop
for ten years, but his accession is put in the nineteenth year of
Marcus Aurelius (by Jerome), or in the second year of Commodus
(by the Armenian version).
* Upon Agrippinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5.
CHAPTER X.
Pantccnus the Philosopher.
About that time, Pantsenus,^ a man highly 1
distinguished for his learning, had charge
of the school of the faithful in Alexandria.- A
school of sacred learning, which continues to
our day, was established there in ancient times,''
1 Pantaenus is the first teacher of the Alexandrian school that is
known to us, and even his life is involved in obscurity. His chief
significance for us lies in the f.ict that he was the teacher of Clement,
with whom the Alexandrian school first steps out into the full light
of history, and makes itself felt as a power in Christendom. Another
prominent pupil of Panta;nus was Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem
(see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14). Pantsenus was originally a Stoic
philosopher, and must have discussed philosophy in his school in
connection with theology, for Origen appeals to him as his example
in this respect (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 19). His abilities are
testified to by Clement (in his Hypotyposes ; see the next chapter,
§ 4), who speaks of him always in terms of the deepest respect and
affection. Of his birth and death we know nothing. Clement,
Strom. I. I, calls him a " Sicilian bee," which may, perhaps, have
reference to his birthplace. The statement of Philip of Side,
that he was an Athenian, is worthless. We do not know when
he began his work in Alexandria, nor when he finished it. But
from Bk. VI. chap. 6 we learn that Clement had succeeded Pai -
taenus, and was in charge of the school in the time of Septiniius
Severus. This probably means not merely that Panta;nus had
left Egypt, but that he was already dead; and if that be the cast,
the statement of Jerome {de vir. ill. 36), that Panta;nus was in
charge of the school during the reigns of Septimius Severus and
Caracalla, is erroneous (Jerome himself expressly says, in ibid.
chap. 38, that Clement succeeded Pantaenus upon the death of the
latter). Jerome's statement, however, that Panta;nus was sent to
India by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, is not necessarily in
conflict with the indefinite account of Eusebius, who gives no dates.
What authority Jerome has for his account we do not know. If his
statement be correct, the journey must have taken place after 190;
and thus after, or in the midst of, his Alexandrian activity. Euse-
bius apparently accepted the latter opinion, though his statement
at the end of this chapter is dark, and evidently implies that he was
very uncertain in regard to the matter. His whole account rests simply
on hearsay, and therefore too much weight must not be laid upon
its accuracy. After Clement comes upon the scene (which was at
least some years before the outbreak of the persecution of .Severus,
200 A.D. — when he left the city) we hear nothing more of Panta;nus.
Some have put his journey to India in this later period; but this is
contrary to the report of Eusebius, and there is no authority for the
opinion. Photius {Cod. 118) records a tradition that Pantaenus had
himself heard some of the apostles; but this is impossible, and is
asserted by no one else. According to Jerome, nimierous commen-
taries of Pantaenus were extant in his time. Eusebius, at the close
of this chapter, speaks of his expounding the Scriptures " both orally
and in writing," but he does not enumerate his works, and apparently
had never seen them. No traces of them are now extant, unless
some brief reminiscences of his teaching, which we have, are sup-
posed to be drawn from his works, and not merely from his lectures
or conversations (see Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p. 375-383).
- The origin of this school of the faithful, or " catechetical
school," in Alexandria is involved in obscurity. Philip of Side
names Athenagoras as the founder of the school, but his account is
full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and deserves no credence.
The school first comes out into the light of history at this time with
Pantaenus at its head, and plays a prominent part in Church history
under Clement, Origen, Hcraclas, Dionysius, Didymus, &c., until
the end of the fourth century, when it sinks out of sight in the midst
of the dissensions of the Alexandrian church, and its end like its
beginning is involved in obscurity. It probably owed its origin to
no particular individual, but arose naturally as an outgrowth from
the practice which flourished in the early Church of instnuting
catechumens in the elements of Christianity before admitting tlitm
to baptism. In such a philosophical metropolis as Alexandria, a
school, though intended only for catechumens, would very naturally
soon assume a learned character, and it had already in the time of
Pantaenus at least become a regular theological school for the prepa-
ration especially of teachers and preachers. It exercised a great
influence upon theological science, and numbered among its pupils
many celebrated theologians and Ijishops. See the article by Rede-
penning in Herzog, 2d ed. I. 290-292, and Schaff's Ch. Hist. II.
777-781, where the literature of the subject is given.
^ Jerome {dr I'ir. ill. c. 36) states that there had always been
ecclesiastical te.achers in Alexandria from the time of Mark. He is
evidently, however, giving no independent tradition, but merely
draws his conclusion from the words of Eusebius, who simply says
" from ancient times." The date of the origin of the school is in
fact entirely unknown, though there is nothing improbable in the
statement of Jerome that ecclesiastical teachers were always there.
It must, however, have been some years before a school could be
developed or the need of it be fclt.
V. II.]
PANT./ENUS AND CLEMENT.
225
and as we have been informed,' was managed
by men of great ability and zeal for divine
things. Among these it is reported'' that Pan-
tcenus was at that time especially conspicu-
ous, as he had been educated in the philo-
2 sophical system of those called Stoics. They
say that he displayed such zeal for the
divine Word, that he was appointed as a herald
of the Gospel of Christ to the nations in the
East, and was sent as f:ir as India." For indeed"
there were still many evangelists of the ^Vord
who sought earnestly to use their inspired zeal,
after the examples of the apostles, for the in-
crease and building up of the Divine Word.
3 Pantsenus was one of these, and is said to
have gone to India. It is reported that
among persons there who knew of Christ, he
found the Gospel according to Matthew, which
had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholo-
mew,* one of the apostles, had preached to
them, and left with them the writing of Mat-
thew in the Hebrew language," which they had
preserved till that time.
4 After many good deeds, Pantaenus finally
became the head of the school at Alexan-
dria,^" and expounded the treasures of divine
doctrine both orally and in writing."
* napfi\rj(l>ai.iev. " Adyo5 ex^'-
•• Jerome (de vir. ill. 36) says that he was sent to India by the
bishop Demetrius at the request of the Indians themselves, — a
statement more exact than that of Eusebius, whether resting upon
tradition merely, or upon more accurate information, or whether it
is simply a combination of Jerome's, we do not know. It is at any
rate not at all improbable (see above, note i). A little farther on
Eusebius indicates that Pantaenus preached in the same country in
which the apostle Bartholomew had done missionary work. But
according to Lipsius {Diet, of Christ. Biog. I. p. 22) Bartholo-
mew's traditional field of labor was the region of the Bosphorus.
He follows Gutschmid therefore in claiming that the Indians here
are confounded with the Sindians, over whom the Bosphorian kings
of the house of Polemo ruled. Jerome {Ep. ad Magnum; Migne,
Ep. 70) evidently regards the India where Pantaenus preached as
India proper {PantcEmts Stoicce sectce philosophiis, ob pracipue
eruditioitis gloriain, a Demetrio AlexandficE episcopo missus
est in India»i, itt Christutn apud Braclimanas, et illius gentis
philosoplios pmdicaret). Whether the original tradition was that
Pantaenus went to India, and his connection with Bartholomew
(who was wrongly supposed to have preached to the Indians) was
a later combination, or whether, on the other hand, the tradition
that he preached in Bartholomew's field of labor was the original
and the mission to India a later combination, we cannot tell. It is
probable that Eusebius meant India proper, as Jerome certainly
did, but both of them may have been mistaken.
' rjo-ac v"Pi ^trai' eicreTi. Eusebius seems to think it a remark-
able fact that there should still have been preaching evangelists.
Evidently they were no longer common in his day. It is interest-
ipg to notice that he calls them " evangelists." In earlier times
they were called "apostles" (e.g. in the Didacke), but the latter
had long before Eusebius' time become a narrower, technical term.
" See note 6.
3 If the truth of this account be accepted, Pantaenus is a witness
to the existence of a Hebrew Matthew. See above, Bk. III. chap.
24, note 5. It has been assumed by some that this Gospel was the
Gospel according to the Hebrews (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 24).
This is possible; but even if Pantaenus really did find a Hebrew Gos-
pel of Matthew as Eusebius says (and which, according to Jerome,
de vir. ill. 36, he brought back to Alexandria with him), we have
no grounds upon which to base a conclusion as to its nature, or its
relation to our Greek Matthew.
'" Eusebius apparently puts the journey of Pantaenus in the mid-
dle of his Alexandrian activity, and makes him return again and
teach there until his death. Jerome also agrees in putting the jour-
ney in the middle and not at the beginning or close of his Alex-
andrian activity. It must be confessed, however, that Eusebius'
language is very vague, and of such a nature as perhaps to imply
that he really had no idea when the mission took place.
'1 See above, note i.
VOL. I. (
CHAPTER XI.
Clement of Alexandria.
\
At this time Clement,^ being trained with
him - in the divine Scriptures at Alexandria,
became well known. He had the same name
as the one who anciently was at the head of the
Roman church, and who was a disciple of
the apostles.^ In his Hypotyposes* he 2
speaks of Pantaenus by name as his teacher.
It seems to me that he alludes to the same per-
son also in the first book of his Stromata, when,
referring to the more conspicuous of the suc-
cessors of the aposdes whom he had met,'' he
says : "
"This work'' is not a writing artfully 3
constructed for display ; but my notes are
stored up for old age, as a remedy against for-
getfulness ; an image without art, and a rough
sketch of those powerful and animated words
which it was my privilege to hear, as well as
of blessed and truly remarkable men. Of 4
these the one — the Ionian ^ — was in
' Of the place and time of Titus Flavins Clement's birth we have
no certain knowledge, though it is probable that he was an Athenian
by training at least, if not by birth, and he must have been born
about the middle of the second century. He received a very exten-
sive education, and became a Christian in adult years, after he had
tried various systems of philosophy, much as Justin Martyr had.
He had a great thirst for knowledge, and names six different teachers
under whom he studied Christianity (see below, § 4). Finally he
became a pupil of Pantaenus in Alexandria, whom he afterward suc-
ceeded as the head of the catechetical school there. It is at this
time (about 190 A.D.) that he comes out clearly into the light of
history, and to this period (190-202) belongs his greatest literary
activity. He was at the head of the school probably until 202, when
the persecution of Severus having broken out, he left Alexandria, and
we have no notice that he ever returned. That he did not leave
Alexandria dishonorably, through fear, may be gathered from his
presence with Alexander during his imprisonment, and from the
letters of the latter (see below, Bk. VI. chaps. 11 and 14, and cf.
Bk. VI. chap. 6, notes). This is the last notice that we have of
him (a.d. 212) ; and of the place and time of his death we know
nothing, though he cannot have lived many years after this. He
was never a bishop, but was a presbyter of the Alexandrian church,
and was in ancient times commemorated as a saint, but his name
was dropped from the roll by Clement VIII. on account of sus-
pected heterodoxy. He lived in an age of transition, and his great
importance lies in the fact that he completed the bond between Hel-
lenism and Christianity, and as a follower of the apologists estab-
lished Christianity as a philosophy, and yet not as they had done in
an apologetic sense. He was the teacher of Origen, and the real
father of Greek theology. He published no system, as did Origen;
his works were rather desultory and fragmentary, but full of wide
and varied learning, and exhibit a truly broad and catholic spirit.
Upon his works, see Bk. VI. chap. 13. Upon Clement, see espe-
cially Westcott's article in Smith and Wace, I. 559-567, and Schaff,
II. 781-785, where the literature is given with considerable fullness.
For an able and popular presentation of his theology, see Allen's
Coiiiiiiuity of Christian Thought, p. 38-70.
2 (TVV(X<TKOV\i.^VO^.
3 Upon Clement of Rome and his relation to the apostles, see
Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19.
■• On Clement's Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. The
passage in which he mentions Pantaenus by name has not been pre-
served. Eusebius repeats the same statement in Bk. VI. chap. 13,
§ I. .
" Toil? eiKftavearepov; ^? icaT6i'Arj</)6i' a7r6(7ToAtK^? SiaSoxrj'; firi-
<7J))u.ai>'6fiei'0!. Rufinus reads apostolica: prc^dicationis instead o(
successionis. And so Christophorsonus and Valesius adopt ^'5a-
X»i« instead of Sia^oxJj?, and translate doctrina. But 6ia6ov^s is
too well supported by MS. authority to be rejected; and though the
use of the abstract " succession," instead of the concrete " succes-
sors," seems harsh, it is employed elsewhere in the same sense by
Eusebius (see Bk. I. chap, i, § i).
c Strom. I. I. ' i.e. his Stromata.
* This is hardly a proper name, although many have so con-
sidered it, for Clement gives no other proper name in this con-
nection, and it is much more natural to translate " the Ionian."
226
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V.
8.
Greece, the other in Magna Grsecia ; ^ the one
of them was from Coele-Syria,'" the other from
Egypt. There were others in the East, one of
them an Assyrian," the other a Hebrew in Pal-
estine.'^ But when I met with the last,''^ — in
abiUty truly he was first, — having hunted him
out in his concealment in Egypt, I found
5 rest. These men, preserving the true tradi-
tion of the blessed doctrine, directlv from
the holy apostles, Peter and James and John and
Paul, the son receiving it from the father (but
few were like the fathers), have come by God's
will even to us to deposit those ancestral and
apostolic seeds." '^
CHAPTER XII.
The Bishops i7i Jerusalem.
At this time Narcissus ' was the bishop
of the church at Jerusalem, and he is cele-
Various conjectures have been made as to who these teachers were,
but none are more than mere guesses. Philip of Side tells us that
Athenagoras was a teacher of Clement, but, as we have seen, no
confidence can be placed in his statement. It has been conjectured
also that Melito may be the person referred to as " the Ionian," for
Clement mentions his works, and wrote a book on the paschal ques-
tion in reply to Melito's work on the same subject (see above, Bk.
IV. chap. 26, note 23). This too, however, is mere conjecture.
'■> The lower part of the peninsula of Italy was called Magna
Graecia, because it contained so many Greek colonies.
1" Coele-Syria was the valley lying between the eastern and
western ranges of Lebanon.
11 This has been conjectured to be Tatian. But in the first place,
Clement, in Strom. III. 12, calls Tatian a Syrian instead of an
Assyrian (the terms are indeed often used interchangeably, but we
should nevertheless hardly expect Clement to call his own teacher
in one place a Syrian, in another an Assyrian). And again, in II.
12, he speaks very harshly of Tatian, and could hardly have referred
to him in this place in such terms of respect and affection.
'2 Various conjectures have been m.ade as to the identity of this
teacher, — for instance, Theophilus of Csesarea (who, however, was
never called a Hebrew, according to Valesius), and Theodotus (.so
Valesius).
'3 Pantaenus. There can be no doubt as to his identity, for
Clement says that he remained with him and sought no further.
Eusebius omits a sentence here in which Clement calls Pantcenus
the " Sicilian bee," from which it is generally concluded that he
was a native of Sicily (see the previous chapter, note i).
" This entire passage is very important, as .showing not only
the extensiveness of Clement's own acquaintance with Christians,
but also the close intercourse of Christians in general, both East
and West. Clement's statement in regard to the directness with
which he received apostolic tradition is not definite, and he by no
means asserts that his teachers were hearers of the apostles (which
in itself would not be impossible, but Clement would certainly have
spoken more clearly had it been a fact), nor indeed that they were
hearers of disciples of the apostles. But among so many teachers,
so widely scattered, he could hardly have failed to meet with some
who had at least known those who had known the apostles. In any
case he considers his teachers very near the apostles as regards the
accuracy of their traditions.
The passage is also interesting, as showing the uniformity of
doctrine in different parts of Christendom, according to Clement's
view, though this does not prove much, as Clement himself was so
liberal and so much of an eclectic. It is also interesting, as show-
ing how much weight Clement laid upon tradition, how completely
he rested upon it for the truth, although at the same time he was so
free and broad in his speculation.
* The date of Narcissus' accession to the see of Jerusalem is not
known to us. The Chron. affords us no assistance; for although it
connects him among other bishops with the first (Armen.) or third
(Jerome) year of Severus, it does not pretend to give the date of
accession, and in one place says expressly that the dates of the Jeru-
salem bishops are not known («o« fiotiiimus discernerc tcmpora
sineulortint). But from chap. 22 we learn that he was alrc.idy
bishop in the tenth year of Commodus (189 A. d.) ; from chap. 23, that
he was one of those that presided at a Palestinian council, called in the
time of Bishop Victor, of Home, to discuss the paschal question (see
brated by many to this day. He was the fi
teenth in succession from the siege of the Jew
under Adrian. We have shown that from tht. .
time first the church in Jerusalem was composed
of Gentiles, after those of the circumcision, and
that Marcus was the first Gentile bishop
that presided over them.- After him the 2
succession in the episcopate was : first Cas-
sianus ; after him Publius ; then Maximus ; " fol-
lowing them Julian ; then Gains ; "* after him
Symmachus and another Gaius, and again an-
other Julian ; after these Capito ' and Valens and
Dolichianus ; and after all of them Narcissus, the
thirtieth in regular succession from the apostles.
chap. 23, § 2) ; from Bk. VI. chap. 8, that he was alive at the time
of the persecution of Severus (202 sq.) ; and from the fragment of
one of Alexander's epistles given in Bk. VI. chap. 11, that he was
still alive in his ii6th year, sometime after 212 a.d. (see Bk. VI.
chap. II, note i). Epiphanius {Hcer. LXVI. 20) reports that he
lived until the reign of Alexander Severus (222 a.d.), and this in itself
would not be impossible; for the epistle of Alex.nnder referred to
might have been written as late as 222. But Epiphanius is a writer
of no authority; and the fact is, that in connection with Origen's
visit in Palestine, in 216 (see Bk. VI. chap. 19), Alexander is men-
tioned as bishop of Jerusalem; and Narcissus is not referred to. We
must, therefore, conclude that Narcissus was dead before 216. We
learn from Bk. VI. chap. 9 that Narcissus had the reputation of
being a great miracle-worker, and he was a man of such great piety
and sanctity as to excite the hatred of a number of evil-doers, who
conspired against him to blacken his character. In consequence of
this he left Jerusalem, and disappeared entirely from the haunts of
men, so that it became necessarj' to appoint another bishop in his
place. Afterward, his slanderers having suffered the curses im-
precated upon themselves in their oaths against him. Narcissus re-
turned, and was again made bishop, and was given an assistant,
Alexander (see Bk. VI. chaps. 10 and 11). A late tradition makes
Narcissus a martyr (see Nicephorus, H. E. IV. 19), but there is no
authority for the report.
2 Upon the so-called bishops of Jerusalem down to the destruc-
tion of the city under Hadrian, see Bk. IV. chap. 5. Upon the
destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian, and the founding of the
Gentile Church in XX\3. Capitolina, and upon Marcus the first Gentile
bishop, see Bk. IV. chap. 6.
The list given here by Eusebius purports to contain fifteen names,
Marcus being the sixteenth, and Narcissus being the thirtieth; but
only thirteen names are given. In the Chron., however, and in
Epiphanius {Hcer. LXVI. 20) the list is complete, a second Maxi-
mus and a Valentinus being inserted, as 26lh and 27th, between
Capito and Valens. The omission here is undoubtedly due simply
to the mistake of some scribe. The Chron. puts the accession of
Cassianus into the 23d year of Antoninus Pius (160 a.d.), and the
accession of the second Maximus into the sixth year of Commodus
(185 A.D.), but it is said in the Chron. itself that the dates of the
various bishops are not known, and hence no reliance can be placed
upon these figures. Epiphanius puts the accession of the first Gaius
into the tenth year of Antoninus Pius, which is thirteen years earlier
than the date of the Chron. for the fourth bishop preceding. He
also puts the death of the second Gaius in the eighth year of ftlarcus
Aurelius (168 a.d.), and the death of the second Maximus in the
sixteenth year of the same reign, thus showing a variation from the
Chron. of more than nine years. The episcojiatc of Dolichianus is
brought down by him to the reign of Commodus (180 a.d.). As
shown in note i, however, the date given by him for Narcissus is
quite wrong, and there is no reason for bestowing any greater cre-
dence upon his other dates. Syncellus assigns five years to Cassia-
nus, five to Publius, four to Maximus, two to Julian, three to the
first Gaius, two to Symmachus, three to the second Gaius, four to
the second Julian, two to an Elias who is not named by our other
authorities, four to Capito, four to the second Maximus, five to
Antoninus, three to Valens, four to Narcissus the first time, and ten
the second time. His list, however, is considerably confused, —
Dolichianus being thrown after Narcissus with an episcopate of
twelve years, — and at any rate no reliance can be placed upon the
figures given. Wc must conclude that we have no means of ascer-
taining the dates of these various bishops until we reach Narcissus.
We know nothing about any of them (Narcissus excepted) beyond
the fact that they were bishops.
3 Called Maximinus by the Armenian Chron., but all our other
authorities call him Maximus.
^ The name is given IVioc in this ch.apter, and by Syncellus;
but Jerome and the Armenian give Gaianus, and Ki)iphanius IVim-
vos. All the authorities .agree upon the name of the next Gaius
(who is, however, omitted by Rufinus).
^ Eusebius has KairiTioi', .so also Epiphanius, with wliom Jerome
agrees, writing Cafiito. The Armenian, however, has Apion, and
Syncellus says '.Vn-iuir, oi 6t Kainruji'.
V. 13-]
RHODO'S ACCOUNT OF APELLES.
227
CHAPTER XIII.
Rhodo and his Account 0/ the Dissension of
Marcion.
1 At this time Rhodo/ a native of Asia, who
had been instructed, as he himself states, by
Tatian, with whom we have already become ac-
quaintcil," having written several books, pub-
lished among the rest one against the heresy of
Marcion.^ He says that this heresy was divided
in his time into various opinions ; ^ and while
describing those who occasioned the division,
he refutes accurately the falsehoods devised
2 by each of them. But hear what he writes : ^
"Therefore also they disagree among
themselves, maintaining an inconsistent opin-
ion.* For Apelles," one of the herd, priding
' We know nothing of Rhodo except what is contained in this
chapter. Jerome gives a very brief account of him in his de vir. ill.
jj, but it rests solely upon this chapter, with the single addition of
the statement that Rhodo wrote a work Against ike Phrygians.
It is plain enough, however, that he had for his account no inde-
pendent source, and that he in this statement simply attributed to
Rhodo the work quoted by Eusebius as an anonymous work in
chap. 16. Jerome permits himself such unwarranted combinations
very frequently, and we need not be at all surprised at it. With
him a guess is often as good as knowledge, and in this case he
doubtless considered his guess a very shrewd one. There is no
warrant for supposing that he himself saw the work mentioned by
Eusebius, and thus learned its authorship. What Eusebius did not
learn from it he certainly could not, and his whole account betrays
the most slavish and complete dependence upon Eusebius as his
only source. In chap. 39 Jerome mentions Rhodo again as referring,
in a book which he wrote against Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla,
to Milti.ades, who also wrote against the same heretics. This report
is plainly enough taken directly from Eusebius, chap. 17, where
Eusebius quotes from the same anonymous work. Jerome's utterly
baseless combination is very interesting, and significant of his gen-
eral method.
Rhodo's works are no longer extant, and the only fragments we
have are those preserved by Eusebius in this chapter.
- See Bk. IV. chap. 29.
' Upon Marcion and Marcionism, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22.
* It is noticeable that Rhodo says yi'uifias, opinio7is, not parties.
Although the diflerent Marcionites held various theoretical beliefs,
which gave rise to different schools, yet they did not split up into
sects, but remained one church, and retained the one general name
of Marcionites, and it is by this general name alone that they are
always referred to by the Fathers. The fact that they could hold
such variant beliefs (e.g. one, two, or three principles; see below,
note 9) without splitting up into sects, shows that doctrines were
but a side issue with them, and that the religious spirit was the matter
upon which they laid the chief emphasis. This shows the funda-
mental difference between Marcion and the Gnostics.
•'' These fragments of Rhodo are collected and discussed by
Routh in his Rel. Sacm, I. 437-446.
« The Fathers entirely misunderstood Marcion, and mistook the
significance of his movement. They regarded it, like Gnosticism in
general, solely as a speculative system, and entirely overlooked its
practical aim. The speculative and theological was not the chief
thing with Marcion, but it is the only thing which receives any at-
tention from his opponents. His positions, all of which were held
only with a practical interest, were not treated by him in a specula-
tive manner, nor were they handled logically and systematically.
As a consequence, many contradictions occur in them. These con-
tradictions were felt by his followers, who laid more and more em-
phasis upon the speculative over against the practical; and hence,
as Rhodo reports, they fell into disagreement, and, in their effort to
remove the inconsistencies, formed various schools, differing among
themselves according to the element upon which the greatest weight
was laid. There is thus some justification for the conduct of the
Fathers, who naturally carried back and attributed to Marcion the
principles of his followers. But it is our duty to distinguish the man
from his followers, and to recognize his greatness in spite of their
littleness. Not all of them, however, fell completely away from his
practical religious spirit. Apelles, as we shall see below, was in
many respects a worthy follower of his master.
' Apelles was the greatest and most famous of Marcion's dis-
ciples. Tertullian wrote a special work against him, which is
unfortunately lost, but from his own quotations, and from those
of Pseudo-Tertullian and, Hippolytus, it can be in part restored
(cf. Harnack's De Apellis Gnosis Monarcltia, p. 11 sqq.). As he
was an old man (see § 5, below) when Rhodo conversed with him.
himself on his manner of life** and his age, ac-
knowledges one principle,'-* but says that the
prophecies ^^ are from an opposing spirit, being
led to this, view by the responses of a maiden
by name Philumene," who was possessed by a
he must have been born early in the second century. We know
nothing definite either as to his birth or death. The picture which
we have of him in this chapter is a very pleasing one. He was a
man evidently (if deep religious spirit and moral life, who laid weight
upon "trust in the crucified Christ" (see § 5, below), and upon
holiness in life in distinction from doctrinal beliefs; a man who
was thus thoroughly Marcionitic in his principles, although he dif-
fered so widely with Marcion in some of his doctrinal positions that
he was said to have founded a new sect (so Origen, I tout, in Geti.
II. 2). The slightest difference, however, between his teaching and
Marcion's would have been sufficient to make him the founder of a
separate Gnostic sect in the eyes of the Fathers, and therefore this
statement must be taken with allowance (see note 4, above). The
account which Hippolytus {Phil. X. 16) gives of the doctrinal posi-
tions of Apelles is somewhat different from that of Rhodo, but am-
biguous and less exact. The scandal in regard to him, reported by
I'ertuUian in his De Praise riptioiie, 30, is quite in accord with
Tertullian's usual conduct towards heretics, and may be set aside as
not having the slightest foundation in fact, and as absolutely con-
tradicting what we know of Apelles from this report of his contem-
porary, Rhodo. His moral character was certainly above reproach,
and the same may be said of his master, Marcion. Upon Apelles,
see especially Harnack's De Apellis Gnosis Monarchia, Lips. 1874.
* The participle (<reM>'i"'<>Me''o?) carries with it the implication
that Apelles' character was affected or assumed. The implication,
however, does not lessen the value of Rhodo's testimony to his
character. He could not deny its purity, though he insinuated that
it was not sincere.
^ This means that Apelles accepted only one God, and made the
creator but an angel who was completely under the power of the
Supreme God. Marcion, on the contrary, held, as said below, two
principles, teaching that the world-creator was himself a God,
eternal, uncre ited, and independent of the good God of the Chris-
tians. It is true that Marcion represented the world-creator as
limited in power and knowledge, and taught that the Christian God
would finally be supreme, and the world-creator become subject to
him; but this, while it involves Marcion in self-contradiction as soon
as the matter is looked at theoretically, yet does not relieve him
from the charge of actual dualism. His followers were more con-
sistent, and either accepted one principle, subordinating the world-
creator completely to the good God, as did Apelles, or else carried
out Marcion's dualism to its logical result and asserted the continued
independence of the Old Testament God and the world-creator, who
was thus very early identified with Satan and made the enemy of
the Christian God. (Marcion's world-creator was not the bad (jod,
but the righteous in distinction from the good God.) Still others
held three principles: the good God of the Christians, the righteous
God or world-creator, and the bad God, Satan. The varying doc-
trines of these schools explain the discrepant and often contradictory
reports of the Fathers in regard to the doctrines of Marcion. Apel-
les' doctrine was a decided advance upon that of Marcion, as he
rejected the dualism of the latter, which was the destructive element
in his system, and thus approached the Church, whose foundation
must be one God who rules the world for good. His position is
very significant, as remarked by Harnack, because it shows that
one could hold Marcion's fundamental principle without becoming
a dualist.
1" i.e. the Old Testament prophecies. Apelles in his Syllogisms
(see below, note 28) exhibited the supposed contradictions of the
Old Testament in syllogistic form, tracing them to two adverse
angels, of whom the one spoke falsely, contradicting the truth
spoken by the other. Marcion, on the other hand (in his Antithe-
ses), referred all things to the same God, the world-creator, and
from the contradictions of the book endeavored to show his vacil-
lating and inconsistent character. He, however, accepted the Old
Testament as in the main a trustworthy book, but referred the
prophecies to the Jewish Messiah in distinction from the Christ of
the New Testament. But Apelles, looking upon two adverse angels
as the authors of the book, regarded it as in great part false. Mar-
cion and Apelles were one, however, in looking upon it as an anti-
Christian book.
1' This virgin, Philumene, is connected with Apelles in all the
reports which we have of him (e.g. in Hippolytus, Tertullian,
Jerome, &c.), and is reported to have been looked upon by Apelles
as a prophetess who received revelations from an angel, and who
worked miracles. Tertullian, De Preiser iptione, 6, evidently ac-
cepts these miracles as facts, but attributes them to the agency of a
demon. They all unite in considering her influence the cause of
Apelles' heretical opinions. Tertullian {ibid. 30, &c.) calls her a
prostitute, but the silence of Rhodo and Hippolytus is sufficient
refutation of such a charge, and it may be rejected as a baseless
slander, like the report of Apelles' immorality mentioned in note 7.
There is nothing strange in the fact that Apelles should follow the
prophecies of a virgin, and the Fathers who mention it evidently do
not consider it as anything peculiar or reprehensible in itself. It
was very common in the early Church to appeal to the relatives of
virgins and widows. Cf. e.g. the virgin daujhters of Philip whg
Q2
228
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 13.
3 demon. But others, among whom are Potitus
and BasiHcus,^ hold to two principles,^'' as
4 does the mariner " Marcion himself. These
following the wolf ^^ of Pontus, and, like him,
unable to fathom the division of things, became
reckless, and without giving any proof asserted
two principles. Others, again, drifting into a
worse error, consider that there are not only
two, but three natures.^" Of these, Syneros ^" is
the leader and chief, as those who defend
5 his teaching ^* say." The same author writes
that he engaged in conversation with Apelles.
He speaks as follows :
" For the old man Apelles, when conversing
with us,^^ was refuted in many things which he
spoke falsely ; whence also he said that it was
not at all necessary to examine one's doctrine,""
but that each one should continue to hold what
he believed. For he asserted that those who
trusted in the Crucified would be saved, if only
they were found doing good works.'^ But as we
prophesied (Acts xxi. g; Eusebius, III. 31), also the Ecclcs. Canons,
chap. 21, where it is directed that three widows shall be appointed,
of whom two shall give themselves to prayer, waiting for revelations
in regard to any question which may arise in the Church, and the
third shall devote herself to nursing the sick. Tertullian also ap-
peals for proof of the materiality of the soul to a vision enjoyed by
a Christian sister {de Ain'iiia, 9). So Montanus had his prophet-
esses Priscilla and Maximilla (see the next chapter).
" Of these two men we know only what is told us here. They
are not mentioned elsewhere.
13 See note 9.
1* 6 vauTij?. This word is omitted by many MSS., but is found
in the best ones and in Rufinus, and is accepted by most of the edi-
tors of Eusebius. Tertullian calls Marcion a ship-master {Adii.
Marc. III. 6, and IV. 9, &c.) and a pilot (ibid. I. 18), and makes
many plays upon his profession (e.g. il'id. V. i), and there is no
reason to take the word in a figurative sense (as has been done) and
suppose that he is called a mariner simply because of his nation-
ality. We know that he traveled extensively, and that he was a
rich man (for he gave 200,000 sesterces at one time to the church of
Rome, which was a large sum for those days; see Tertullian, di'
Prcescript. 30). There is, therefore, no reason to doubt that he was
a " ship-master," as Tertullian calls him.
"• It was the custom of the Fathers to call the heretics hard
names, and Marcion received his full share of them from his oppo-
nents, especially from Tertullian. He is compared to a wolf by
Justin also, Apol. I. 58, on account of his " carrying away " so
many " Iambs" from the truth.
"■' See note 9.
1' Of Syneros we know only what is told us here. He is not
mentioned elsewhere. Had the Marcionites split into various sects,
these leaders must have been well known among the Fathers, and
their names must have been frequently referred to. As it was, they
all remained Marcionites, in spite of their differences of opinion (see
above, note 4).
I' 6i6a<7icd.Aioi', which is the reading of the majority of the MSS.,
and is adopted by Heinichen. Burton and Schwegler read fiiSacrica-
Aeioi', on the authority of two MSS.
"' Apelles was evidently like Marcion in his desire to keep with-
in the Church as much as possible, and to associate with Church
people. He had no esoteric doctrines to conceal from the multitude,
and in this he shows the great difference between himself and the
Gnostics. Marcion did not leave the Church until he was obliged
to, and he founded his own church only under compulsion, upon be-
ing driven out of the Catholic community.
20 TQv Aoyoi'.
2t This is a truly Christian sentiment, and Apelles should be
honored for the expression of it. It reveals clearly the religious
character of Marcionism in distinction from the speculative and the-
ological character of the Gnostics, and indeed of many of the P'athers.
With Marcion and Apelles we arc in a world of sensitive moral prin-
ciple and of deep religious feeling like that in which Paul and Augus-
tine lived, but few others in the early Church. Rhodo, in spite of
his orthodoxy, shows himself the real Gnostic over against the sin-
cere believer, though the latter was in the eyes of the Churcli a
" blasphemous heretic." Apelles' noble words do honor to the
movement — however heretical it was — which in that barren age of
theology could give them birth.
The latter clause, taken as it stands, would seem to indicate an
elevation of good works to the level of faith ; but thougli it is pos-
have said before, his opinion concerning God
was the most obscure of all. For he spoke of
one principle, as also our doctrine does."
Then, after stating fully his own opinion, C
he adds :
" When I said to him. Tell me how you know
this or how can you assert that there is one prin-
ciple, he replied that the prophecies refuted them-
selves, because they have said nothing true ; "
for they are inconsistent, and false, and self-con-
tradictory. But how there is one principle he
said that he did not know, but that he was
thus persuaded. As I then adjured him to 7
speak the truth, he swore that he did so
when he said that he did not know how there is
one unbegotten God, but that he believed it.
Thereupon I laughed and reproved him because,
though calling himself a teacher, he knew not how
to confirm what he taught." ^^
In the same work, addressing Callistio,-* the 8
same writer acknowledges that he had been
instructed at Rome by Tatian."' And he says
that a book of Problems ^" had been prepared by
Tatian, in which he promised to explain the ob-
sible that Apelles may have intended to express himself thus, it is
more probable, when we remember the emphasis which Marcion laid
upon Paul's doctrine of salvation by the grace of God alone, that he
meant to do no more than emphasize good works as a natural result
of true faith, as we do to-day. The apparent co-ordination of the
two may perhaps lie simply in Rhode's reproduction of Apelles'
words. He, at least, did not comprehend Paul's grand doctrine of
Christian liberty, nor did any of his orthodox contemporaries. The
difference between the common conception of Christ's relation to the
law, and the conception of Paul as grasped by Marcion and perhaps
by Apelles, is well illustrated by a passage in Tertullian, in which
he expresses astonishment that the RIarcionites do not sin freely, so
long as they do not expect to be punished, and exclaims (to his own
dishonor), " I would sin without scruple, if I believed as you do."
22 Rhodo had probably brought forward against Apelles proof
from prophecy which led to the discussion of the Old I'estament
prophecies in general. Although Apelles had rejected Marcion's
dualism, and accepted the " one principle," he still rejected the Ol J
Testament. This is quite peculiar, and yet perfectly comprehen-
sible; for while Marcion was indeed the only one of that age that
understood Paul, yet as Harnack well says, even he misunderstood
him ; and neither himself nor his followers were able to rise to Paul's
noble conception of the Old Testament law as a " schoolmaster to
bring us to Christ," and thus a part of the good God's general plan
of salvation. It took, perhaps, a born Jew, as Paul was, to reach
that high conception of the law in those days. To Marcion and his
followers the law seemed to stand in irreconcilable conflict with tlie
Gospel, — Jewish law on the one side. Gospel liberty on the other, —
they could not reconcile them; they must, therefore, reject the
former as from another being, and not from the God of the (Jospel.
There was in that age no historical interpretation of the Old Testa-
ment. It must either be interpreted allegorically, and made a com-
pletely Christian book, or else it must he rejected as opposed to
Christianity. Marcion and his followers, in their conception of law
and Gospel as necessarily opposed, could follow only the latter
course. Marcion, in his rejection of the Old Testament, proceeded
simply upon dogmatic presumptions. Apelles, although his rejec-
tion of it undoubtedly originated in the same presumptions, yet sub-
jected it to a criticism which satisfied him of the correctness of his
position, and gave him a fair basis of attack. His procedure was,
therefore, more truly historical than that of Marcion, and antici-
pated modern methods of higher criticism.
2'' A true Gnostic sentiment, over against which the pious
" agnosticism " of Apelles is not altogether unrefreshing. The
Church did not fully conquer Gnosticism, — Gnosticism in some
degree conquered the Church, and the anti-Gnostics, like Aiielles,
were called heretics. It was the vicious error of Gnosticism thai it
looked upon Christianity as knowledge, that it completely identified
the two, and our existing systems of theology, .some of them, testify
to the fact that there are still Gnostics among us.
-* Of this Callistio we know nothing; but, as has been remarked
by another, he must have been a well-known man, or Eusebius
would probably have said "a certain Callistio" (see Salmon's
article in Smith and Ware).
-'■ Upon Tatian, see Hk. IV. chap. 29, note i.
2" Upon this work (irpo/3A»j(uaTu)»' /Si^Aioi"), see ibid.
V. i6.]
MONTANISM.
229
scure and hidden parts of the divine Scriptures.
Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his
own sohitions of Tatian's problems.^ There is
also extant a Commentary of his on the Hexae-
meron
28
i
9 But this Apelles wrote many things, in
an impious manner, of the law of Moses,
blaspheming the divine words in many of his
works, being, as it seemed, very zealous for their
refutation and overthrow.^''
So much concerning these.
CHAPTER XIV.
T/ie False Prophets of the Phrygians.
The enemy of God's Church, who is emphati-
cally a hater of good and a lover of evil, and
leaves untried no manner of craft against men,
was again active in causing strange heresies to
spring up against the Church.^ For some per-
sons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia
and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the
Paraclete, and that the women that followed
him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses
of Montanus."
CHAPTER XV.
Tlie Schism of Blastus at Rome}
Others, of whom Florinus " was chief, flour-
ished at Rome. He fell from the presbyterate
of the Church, and Blastus was involved in a
similar fall. They also drew away many of
the Church to their opinion, each striving to
introduce his own innovations in respect to the
truth.
2? Whether Rhodo fulfilled this promise we do not know. The
work is mentioned by no one else, and Eusebius evidently had no
knowledge of its existence, or he would have said so.
28 eis Tr\v ejajj/xepoi/ vTTOnvrjfia. This work of Rhodo's, on the
Hc.x(e)neron (or six days' work), is mentioned by no one else, and
no fragments of it are known to us. For a notice of other works on
the same subject, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 22, note 3.
23 Hippolytus (X. 16) also mentions works of Apelles against the
law and the prophets. We know of but one work of his, viz. the
Syllogisiiis, which was devoted to the criticism of the Old Testa-
ment, and in which he worked out the antitheses of Marcion in a
syllogistic form. The work is cited only by Origen (z« Gen. W. 2)
and by Ambrose (ZJc Parad. V. 28), and they have preserved but
a few brief fragments. It must have been an e-xtensive work, as
Ambrose quotes from the 38th book. From these fragments we can
see that Apelles' criticism of the Old Testament was very keen and
sagacious. For the difference between himself and Marcion in the
treatment of the Old Testament, see above, note 9. The words of
Eusebius, " as it seemed," show that he had not himself seen the
book, as might indeed be gathered from his general account of
Apelles, for which he depended solely upon secondary sources.
1 Cf. Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 3.
- On Montanus and the Montanists, see chap. 16.
1 The separation of chaps. 14 and 15 is unfortunate. They are
closely connected (oi \t.iv in chap. 14 and oi hi in chap. 15), and
constitute together a general introduction to the following chapters,
Montanism being treated in chaps. 16 to 19, and the schism of
Florinus and Blastus in chap. 20.
' On Florinus and Blastus, see chap. 20,
CHAFPER XVI.
The Circumstances related of Montanus and his
False Prophets}
Against the so-called Phrygian' heresy, 1
the power which always contends for the
1 Montanism must not be looked upon as a heresy in the ordinary
sense of the term. The movement lay in the sphere of life and dis-
cipline rather than in that of theology. Its fundamental proposition
was the continuance of divine revelation which was begun under
the old Dispensation, was carried on in the time of Christ and his
apostles, and reached its highest development under the dispensation
of the Paraclete, which opened with the activity of Montanus. This
Montanus was a Phrygian, who, in the latter part of the second
century, began to fall into states of ecstasy and to have visions, and
believed himself a divinely inspired prophet, through whom the
promised Paraclete spoke, and with whom therefore the dispensation
of that Paraclete began. Two noble ladies (Priscilla and Maximilla)
attached themselves to Montanus, and had visions and prophesied
in the same way. These constituted the three original prophets t!f
the sect, and all that they taught was claimed to be of binding
authority on all. They were quite orthodox, accepted fully the
doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church, and did not pretend to
alter in any way the revelation given by Christ and his apostles.
But they claimed that some things had not been revealed by them,
because at that early stage the Church was not able to bear them;
but that such additional revelations were now given, because the
fullness of time had come which was to precede the second coming
of Christ. These revelations had to do not at all with theology, but
wholly with matters of life and discipline. They taught a rigid
asceticism over against the growing worldliness of the Church, severe
discipline over against its laxer methods, and finally the universal
priesthood of believers (even female), and their right to perform all
the functions of church officers, over against the growing sacer-
dotalism of the Church. They were thus in a sense reformers, or
perhaps reactionaries is a better term, who wished to bring back,
or to preserve against corruption, the original principles and methods
of the Church. They aimed at a puritanic reaction against world-
liness, and of a democratic reaction against growing aristocracy in
the Church. They insisted that ministers were made by God alone,
by the direct endowment of his Spirit in distinction from human
ordination. They looked upon their prophets — supernaturally called
and endowed by the Spirit — as supreme in the Church. They
claimed that all gross offenders should be excommunicated, and that
neither they nor the lax should ever be re-admitted to the Church.
They encouraged celibacy, increased the number and severity of
fasts, eschewed worldly amusements, &c. This rigid asceticism was
enjoined by the revelation of the Spirit through their prophets, and
was promoted by their belief in the speedy coming of Christ to set
up his kingdom on earth, which was likewise prophesied. They
were thus pre-Millenarians or Chiliasts.
The movement spread rapidly in Asia Minor and in North
Africa, and for a time in Rome itself. It appealed very powerfully
to the sterner moralists, stricter disciplinarians, and more deeply
pious minds among the Christians. AH the puritanically inclined
schisms of this period attracted many of the better class of Chris-
tians, and this one had the additional advantage of claiming the
authority of divine revelation for its strict principles. The greatest
convert was Tertullian, who, in 201 or 202, attracted by the asceti-
cism and disciplinary rigor of the sect, attached himself to it, and
remained until his death its most powerful advocate. He seems to
have stood at the head of a separatist congregation of Montanists in
Carthage, and yet never to have been excommunicated by the
Catholic Church. Montanism made so much stir in Asia Minor that
synods were called before the end of the second century to consider
the matter, and finally, though not without hesitation, the whole
movement was officially condemned. Later, the condemnation was
ratified in Rome and also in North Africa, and Montaiiism gradu-
ally degenerated, and finally, after two or three centuries, entirely
disappeared.
But although it failed and passed away, Montanism had a
marked influence on the development of the Church. In the first
place, it aroused a general distrust of prophecy, and the result was
that the Church soon came to the conviction that prophecy had
entirely ceased. In the second place, the Church was led to see
the necessity of emphasizing the historical Christ and historical
Christianity over against the Montanistic claims of a constantly
developing revelation, and thus to put great emphasis upon the
Scripture canon. In the third place, the Church had to lay in-
creased stress upon the organization — upon its appointed and
ordained officers — over against the claims of irregular prophets who
might at any time arise as organs of the Spirit. The development
of Christianity into a religion of the book and of the organization
was thus greatly advanced, and the line began to be sharply drawn
between the age of the apostles, in which there had been direct
supernatural revelations, and the later age, in which such revela-
tions had disappeared. We are, undoubtedly, to date from this time
that exalted conception of the glory of the apostolic age, and of its
absolute separation from ail subsequent ages, which marks so
Strongly the Church of succeeding centuries, and which led men to
2 30
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 1 6.
truth raised up a strong and invincible weapon,
Apolinarius of Hierapolis, whom we have men-
tioned before/ and with him many other men of
ability, by whom abundant material for our
2 history has been left. A certain one of
these, in the beginning of his work against
them,'* first intimates that he had contended
3 with them in oral controversies. He com-
mences his work in this manner : ^
" Having for a very long and sufficient time,
O beloved Avircius Marcellus,*' been urged by
you to write a treatise against the heresy of those
who are called after Miltiades,^ I have hesitated
endeavor to gain apostolic authority for every advance in the
constitution, in the customs, and in the doctrine of the Church.
There had been little of this feeling before, but now it became uni-
versal, and it explains the great number of pseudo-ajjostolic works
of the third and following centuries. In the fourth place, the Chili-
astic ideas of Montanism produced a reaction in the Church which
caused the final rejection of all grossly physical Premillenarian be-
liefs which up to this time had been very common. For further
particulars in regard to IMontanism, see the notes on this and the
following chapters.
Our chief sources for a knowledge of Montanism are to be found
in the writings of Tertullian. See, also, Epiphanius, HiPr. XLVIII.
and XLIX., and Jerome's Epistle to Marcella (Migne, Ep. 41).
The fragments from the anonymous anti-Montanistic writer quoted
by Eusebius in this and the following chapter, and the fragments of
ApoUonius' work, quoted in chap. 18, are of the greatest importance.
It is to be regretted that Eusebius has preserved for us no frag-
ments of the anti-Montanistic writings of Apolinarius and Melito,
who might have given us still earlier and more trustworthy accounts
of the sect. It is probable that their works were not decided enough
in their opposition to Montanism to suit Eusebius, who, therefore,
chose to take his account from somewhat later, but certainly bitter
enough antagonists. The works of the Montanists themselves
(except those of Tertullian) have entirely perished, but a few
" Oracles," or prophetic utterances, of Montanus, Priscilla, and
Maximilla, have been preserved by Tertullian and other writers, and
are printed by Bonwetsch, p. 197-200. The literature upon Mon-
tanism is very extensive. We may mention here C. W. F. Walch's
Ketzerhistoric, I. p. 611-666, A. Schwegler's Dcr I^Iontanistnus
n lid die christliche Kirche dcs ziveiten JaJirh. (Tiibingen, 1841),
aad especially G. N. Bonwetzsch's Die Geschichte dcs Hlontanisinns
(Erlangen, 1881), which is the best work on the subject, and indis-
pensable to the student. Compare, also, Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. p.
415 sq., where the literature is given with great fullness, Salmon's
article in the Diet, of Christ. Diog., and especially Harnack's
Dogmcitgeschichte , I. p. 319 sq.
2 Tr|C Ki-^o\i.ivr]v Kara. <t>pvya^ a'ipe(Tiv. The heresy of Montanus
was commonly called the Phrygian heresy because it took its rise in
Phrygia. The I-atins, by a solecism, called it the Cataphrygian
heresy. Its followers received other names also, e.g. Priscillianists
(from the prophetess Priscilla), and Pepuziani (from Pepuza, their
headquarters). They called themselves TrvevnariKoi (spiritual),
and the adherents of the Church i//uxtxot (carnal).
3 In Bk. IV. chaps. 21, 26 and 27, and in Bk. V. chap. 5. See
especially Bk. IV. chap. 27, note i.
* The author of this work is unknown. Jerome {de vir. ill. 37)
ascribes it to Khodo (but see above, chap. 13, note i). It is some-
times ascribed to Asterius Urbanus, mentioned by Eusebius in § 17
below, but he was certainly not its author (see below, note 27).
Upon the date of the work, see below, note 32.
'' The fr.igments of this anonymous work are given by Routh,
Rcl. Sac. Vol. II. p. 183 sqq., and in English in the Aiiie-Nicoie
Fathers, Vol. VII. p. 335 sqq.
" 'Aoui'p/cie, as most of the MSS. read. Others have 'AvCpKLe or
'XfiipKie; Nicephorus, '.V^tpKle. The name is quite commonly
written Abercius in English, and the person mentioned here is iden-
tified by many scholars (among them Lightfoot) with Abercius, a
prominent bishop of Hieropolis (not Hierapolis, as was formerly
supposed). A spurious Life 0/ S. Abercius is given by Simeon
Metaphrastes (in Migne'sPa/r. Cr. CXV. 1211 sq.), which, although
of a decidedly legendary character, rests upon a groundwork of fact
as proved by the discovery, in recent years, of an epitaph from
Abercius' tomb. This Abercius was bishop in the time of Marcus
Aurclius, and therefore must have held office at least twelve or fifteen
years (on the date of this anonymous treatise, see below, note 32),
or, if the date given by the spurious Acts for Abercius' visit to Rome
be accepted (163 a.d.), at least thirty years. On Abercius and
Avercius, see the exhaustive note of I.ightfoot, in his Apostolic
Fathers, Part II. {Ignatius and Polycarp), Vol. I. p. 477-485.
' et? T't\v rijiV Kara MtATta^Tji' AeyofieVojf n.'ipf(Tiv. The occur-
rence of the name Miltiades, in this connection, is very puzzling,
f >r we nowhere else hear of a Montanist Miltiades, while the man
referred to here must have held a very prominent place among them.
It is true that it is commonly supposed that the Muratorian Canon
till the present time, not through lack of ability
to refute the falsehood or bear testimony for the
truth, but from fear and apprehension that I
might seem to some to be making additions to
the doctrines or precepts of the Gospel of the
New Testament, which it is impossible for one
who has chosen to live according to the Gos-
pel, either to increase or to diminish. But 4
being recently in Ancyra^ in Galatia, I found
the church there ^ greatly agitated by this nov-
elty, not prophecy, as they call it, but rather
false prophecy, as will be shown. Therefore, to
the best of our ability, with the Lord's help, we
disputed in the church many days concerning
these and other matters separately brought for-
ward by them, so that the church rejoiced and
was strengthened in the truth, and those of the
opposite side were for the time confounded,
and the adversaries were grieved. The 5
presbyters in the place, our fellow-presby-
ter Zoticus^'^ of Otrous also being present, re-
quested us to leave a record of what had been
said against the opposers of the truth. We did
not do this, but we promised to write it out as
soon as the Lord permitted us, and to send it
to them speedily."
refers to some heretic Miltiades, but since Harnack's discussion of
the matter (see especially his Texte und Untersuchuitgen, I. i,
p. 216, note) it is more than doubtful whether a Miltiades is men-
tioned at all in that document. In any case the prominent position
given him here is surprising, and, as a consequence, Valesius (in
his notes), Stroth, Zimmermann, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Hein-
ichen substitute 'AAKiPiaSrji' (who is mentioned in chap. 3 as a prom-
inent Montanist) for MiAriaSTji'. The MSS., however, are unani-
mous in reading MiATiaSjji'; and it is impossible to see how, if
' X\K.iliia.S-f]v had originally stood in the text, MiAtioStji' could have
been substituted for it. It is not impossible that instead of Alci-
biades in chap. 3 we should read, as Salmon suggests, Miltiades.
The occurrence of the name Alcibiades in the previous sentence
might explain its substitution for Miltiades immediately afterward.
It is at least easier to account for that change than for the change
of Alcibiades to Miltiades in the present chapter. Were Salmon's
suggestion accepted, the difficulty in this case would be obviated,
for we should then have a Montanist Miltiades of sufficient promi-
nence to justify the naming of the sect after him in some quarters.
The suggestion, however, rests upon mere conjecture, and it is
safer to retain the reading of our INlSS. in both cases. Until we get
more light from some quarter we must be content to let the matter
rest, leaving the reason for the use of Miltiades' name in this connec-
tion unexplained. There is, of course, nothing strange in the exist-
ence of a Montanist named Miltiades; it is only the great promi-
nence given him here which puzzles us. Upon the ecclesiastical
writer, Miltiades, and Eusebius' confusion of him with Alcibiades,
see chap. 17, note i.
8 Ancyra was the metropolis and one of the three principal cities
of Galatia. Quite an important town, Angora, now occupies its
site.
" Kara Ton'oi', which is the reading of two of the MSS. and
Nicephorus, and is adopted by Burton and Heinichen. The phrase
seems harsh, but occurs again in the next paragraph. The majority
of the MSS. read ko-to. IIorTor, which is adopted by Valesius,
Schwegler, Laemmer, and Crusd. It is grammatically the easier
reading, but the reference to Pontus is unnatural in this connection,
and in view of the occurrence of the same phrase, Kara tottoi', in the
next paragraph, it seems best to read thus in the present case as
well.
1" Of this Zoticus we know only what is told us here. He is to
be distinguished, of course, from Zoticus of Comana, mentioned in
§ 17, below, and in chap. 18, § 13.
Otrous (or Otrys, as it is sometimes written) was a small Phrj'gian
town about two miles from Hieropolis (see W. H. Ramsay's paper,
entitled T>-ois I'illes Phrygionus, in the Bulletin dc Correspon-
danee Hetleniquc, Juillct, 1882). Its bishop was present at the
Council of Chalccdon, and also at the second Council of Nicxa (.see
Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics of the Church). W'e may
gather from this passage that the anonymous author of this anii-
Slontanistic work was a presbyter (he calls Zoticus ax-nnprn-
^iJTtpo?), but we have no hint of his own city, though the fact th.nt
Avircius MarccUus, to whom the work was addressed, wat from
V. i6.]
MONTANISM.
231
6 Having said this with other things, in
the beginning of his work, he proceeds to
state the cause of the above-mentioned heresy
as follows :
" Their opposition and their recent heresy
which has separated them from the Church
7 arose on the following account. There is
said to be a certain village called Ardabau
in that part of Mysia, which borders upon Phry-
gia.'^ There first, they say, when Gratus was
proconsul of Asia,'- a recent convert, Montanus
by name, through his unquenchable desire for
leadership," gave the adversary opportunity
against him. And he became beside himself,
and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ec-
stasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter
strange things, prophesying in a manner con-
trary to the constant custom of the Church
handed down by tradition from the be-
8
gmning.
14
Some of those who heard his
Hieropolis (see note 6), and that the anonymous companion Zoticus
was from Otrous, would lead us to look in that neighborhood for
the home of our author, though hardly to either of those towns (the
mention of the name of the town in connection with Zoticus' name
would seem to shut out the latter, and the opening sentences of the
treatise would seem to exclude the former).
11 iv rfi KcLTo. t'-i)v 'ipvyi-xv Mucrt'a. It is not said here that Mon-
tanus was born in Ardabau, but it is natural to conclude that he
was, and so that village is commonly given as his birthplace. As
we learn from this passage, Ardabau was not in Phrygia, as is often
said, but in Mysia. The boundary line between the two districts
was a very indefinite one, however, and the two were often con-
founded by the ancients themselves; but we cannot doubt in the
present instance that the very exact statement of the anonymous
writer is correct. Of the village of Ardabau itself we know nothing.
1- The exact date of the rise of Montanism cannot be determined.
The reports which we have of the movement vary greatly in their
chronology. We have no means of fixing the date of the procon-
sulship of the Gratus referred to here, and thus the most exact and
reliable statement which we have does not help us. In his Chron.
Eusebius fixes the rise of the movement in the year 172, and it is
possible that this statement was based upon a knowledge of the time
of Gratus' proconsulship. If so, it possesses considerable weight.
The first notice we have of a knowledge of the movement in the
West is in connection with the martyrs of Lyons, who in the year 177
(see Introd. to this book, note 3) were solicited to use their influence
with the bishop of Rome in favor of the IMontanists (see above,
chap. 3, note 6). This goes to confirm the approximate accuracy of
the date given by Eusebius, for we should expect that the move-
ment cannot have attracted public notice in the East very many
years before it was heard of in Gaul, the home of many Christians
from .Asia Minor. Epiphanius {Hcey. XLVIII.) gives the nine-
teenth year of Antoninus Pius (156-157) as the date of its beginning,
but Epiphanius' figures are very confused and contradictory, and
little reliance can be placed upon them in this connection. At the
same time Montanus must have begun his prophesying some years
before his teaching spread over Asia Minor and began to agitate the
churches and alarm the bishops, and therefore it is probable that
Montanism had a beginning some years before the date given by
Eusebius; in fact, it is not impossible that Montanus may have
begun his work before the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius.
13 .A.mbition was almost universally looked upon by the Church
Fathers as the occasion of the various heresies and schisms. Nova-
tian, Donatus, and many others were accused of it by their orthodox
oppon-i-.its. That heretics or schismatics could be actuated by high
and n jble motives was to them inconceivable. We are thus fur-
nished another illustration of their utter misconception of the nature
of heresy so often referred to in these notes.
" The fault found by the Church with Montanus' prophecy
was rather because of its form than because of its substance. It
was admitted that the prophecies contained much that was true,
but the soberer sense of the Church at large objected decidedly
to the frenzied ecstasy in which they were delivered. That a
change had come over the Church in this respect since the apos-
tolic age is perfectly clear. In Paul's time the speaking with
tongues, which involved a similar kind of ecstasy, was very com-
mon; so, too, at the time the Didache was written the prophets
.spoke in an ecstasy (ei' TTi/ty/iaTi, which can mean nothing else: cf.
Harnack's edition, p. 122 sq.). But the early enthusiasm of the
Church had largely passed away by the middle of the second cen-
tury; and though there were still prophets (Justin, for instance, and
even Clement of Alexandria knew of them), they were not in gen-
eral characterized by the same ecstatic and frenzied utterance that
spurious utterances at that time were indig-
nant, and they rebuked him as one that was
possessed, and that was under the control of
a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit,
and was distracting the multitude ; and they for-
bade him to talk, remembering the distinction ^^
drawn by the Lord and his warning to guard
watchfully against the coming of false prophets.'^
But others imagining themselves possessed of
the Holy Spirit and of a prophetic gift,'^ were
elated and not a little puffed up ; and forgetting
the distinction of the Lord, they challenged the
mad and insidious and seducing spirit, and were
cheated and deceived by him. In consequence
of this, he could no longer be held in check,
so as to keep silence. Thus by artifice, or 9
rather by such a system of wicked craft,
the devil, devising destruction for the disobe-
dient, and being unworthily honored by them,
secretly excited and inflamed their understand-
ings which had already become estranged from
the true faith. And he stirred up besides two
women, ^'^ and filled them with the false spirit, so
that they talked wildly and unreasonably and
strangely, like the person already mentioned.*^
And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they
rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up
by the magnitude of his promises. But some-
times he rebuked them openly in a wise and
marked their predecessors. To say that there were none such at
this time would be rash; but it is plain that they had become so de-
cidedly the exception that the revival by the Montanists of the old
method on a large scale and in its extremest form could appear to
the Church at large only a decided innovation. Prophecy in itself
was nothing strange to them, but prophecy in this form they were
not accustomed to, and did not realize that it was but a revival of
the ancient form (cf. the words of our author, who is evidently quite
ignorant of that form). That they should be shocked at it is not to
be wondered at, and that they should, in that age, when all such
manifestations were looked upon as supernatural in their origin, re-
gard these prophets as under the influence of Satan, is no more sur-
prising. There was no other alternative in their minds. Either the
prophecies were from God or from Satan; not their content mainly,
but the manner in which they were delivered aroused the suspicion
of the bishops and other leaders of the Church. Add to that the fact
that these prophets claimed supremacy over the constituted Church
authorities, claimed that the Church must be guided by the revela-
tions vouchsafed to women and apparently half-crazy enthusiasts and
fanatics, and it will be seen at once that there was nothing left for the
leaders of the Church but to condemn the movement, and pronounce
its prophecy a fraud and a work of the Evil One. That all proph-
ecy should, as a consequence, fall into discredit was natural. Clem-
ent {Strom. I. 17) gives the speaking in an ecstasy as one of the
marks of a false prophet, — Montanism had evidently brought the
Church to distinct consciousness on that point, — while Origen,
some decades later, is no longer acquainted with prophets, and de-
nies that they existed even in the time of Celsus (see Contra Cels.
VII. II).
'^' i.e. between true and false prophets. i° Cf. Matt. vii. 15.
^^ (OS ayto) nv^viLO-Ti. /cat npoif>rjTt.Ku} ;i(aptcr/AaTt.
>8 Maxim'illa and Priscilla, or Pnsca (mentioned in chap. 14).
They were married women, who left their husbands to become dis-
ciples of Montanus, were given the rank of virgins in his church,
and with him were the greatest prophets of the sect. They were
regarded with the most profound reverence by all Montanists, who
in many quarters were called after the name of the latter, Priscillian-
ists. It was a characteristic of the Montanists that they insisted
upon the religious equality of men and women; that they accorded
just as high honor to the women as to the men, and listened to their
prophecies with the same reverence. The human person was but
an instrument of the Spirit, according to their view, and hence a
woman might be chosen by the Spirit as his instrument just as well
as a man, the ignorant just as well as the learned. Tertullian, for
instance, cites, in support of his doctrine of the materiality of the
soul, a vision seen by one of the female members of his church, whom
lie believed to be in the habit of receiving revelations from God
{de attima, 9). *» i.e. Montanus.
232
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. i6.
faithful manner, that he might seem to be a
reprover. But those of the Phrygians that were
deceived were few in number.
"And the arrogant spirit taught them to revile
the entire universal Church under heaven, be-
cause the spirit of false prophecy received nei-
ther honor from it nor entrance into it.
10 For the faithful in Asia met often in many
places throughout Asia to consider this
matter,^ and examined the novel utterances and
pronounced them profane, and rejected the
heresy, and thus these persons were expelled
from the Church and debarred from com-
munion."
11 Having related these things at the outset,
and continued the refutation of their delu-
sion through his entire work, in the second book
he speaks as follows of their end :
12 " Since, therefore, they called us slayers
of the prophets -^ because we did not re-
ceive their loquacious prophets, who, they say,
are those that the Lord promised to send to the
people,^- let them answer as in God's presence :
Who is there, O friends, of these who began to
talk, from Montanus and the women down, that
was persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless
men? None. Or has any of them been seized
and crucified for the Name ? Truly not. Or has
one of these women ever been scourged in the
synagogues of the Jews, or stoned ? No ;
13 never anywhere.^ But by another kind
of death Montanus and Maximilla are
said to have died. For the report is that,
incited by the spirit of frenzy, they both hung
themselves ; ^* not at the same time, but at the
2" That synods should early be held to consider the subject of
Montanism is not at all surprising. Doubtless our author is quite
correct in asserting that many such met during these years. They
were probably all of them small, and only local in their character.
We do not know the places or the dates of any of these synods,
although the Lihcllus Syiwdicus states that one was held at Hie-
rapolis under Apolinarius, with twenty-six bishops in attendance,
and another at Anchialus under Sotas, with twelve bishops present.
The authority for these synods is too late to be of much weight, and
the report is just such as we should expect to have arisen upon
the basis of the account of Montanism given in this chapter. It is
possible, therefore, that synods were held in those two cities, but
more than that cannot be said. Upon these synods, see Hefele
{,Co>uilicitgesch. I. p. 83 sq.), who accepts the report of the Libel-
lus Synodicus as trustworthy.
" Cf. the complaint of Maximilla, quoted in § 17, below. The
words are employed, of course, only in the figurative sense to indi-
cate the hostility of the Church toward the Montanists. The
Church, of course, had at that time no power to put heretics to
death, even if it had wished to do so. The first instance of the pun-
ishment of heresy by death occurred in 385, when the Spanish
bishop Priscillian and six companions were executed at Treves.
""■ Cf. Matt, xxiii. 34.
" There is a flat contradiction between this passage and § 21,
below, where it is admitted by this same author that the Montanists
have had their martyrs. The sweeping statements here, considered
in the light of the admission made in the other passage, furnish us
with a criterion of the trustworthiness and honesty of the reports of
our anonymous .author. It is plain that, in his hostility to Montan-
isni, he has no regard whatever for the truth; that his aim is to
paint the heretics as black as possible, even if he is obliged to mis-
represent the facts. We might, from the gener.al tone of the frag-
ment which Eusebius has preserved, imagine this to l^e so: the
. present passage proves it. We know, indeed, that the Mont.anists
had many martyrs, and that their principles were such as to lead
them to martyrdom, even when the Catholics avoided it (cf. Tertul-
lian's De/t<t;a in persecutioue).
'* Whether this story is an invention of our author's, or whether
it was already in circulation, as he says, we cannot tell. Its utter
time which common report gives for the death of
each. And thus they died, and ended their
lives like the traitor Judas. So also, as gen- 14
eral report says, that remarkable person,
the first steward,^ as it were, of their so-called
prophecy, one Theodotus — who, as if at some-
time taken up and received into heaven, fell into
trances, and entrusted himself to the deceitful
spirit — was pitched like a quoit, and died
miserably.'^ They say that these things hap- 15
pened in this manner. But as we did not
see them, O friend, we do not pretend to know.
Perhaps in such a manner, perhaps not, Monta-
nus and Theodotus and the above-mentioned
woman died."
He says again in the same book that the 16
holy bishops of that time attempted to re-
fute the spirit in Maximilla, but were prevented
by others who plainly co-operated with the
spirit. He writes as follows : 17
" And let not the spirit, in the same work
of Asterius Urbanus,-^ say through Maximilla,
' I am driven away from the sheep like a wolf."*
I am not a wolf. I am word and spirit and
power.' But let him show clearly and prove the
power in the spirit. And by the spirit let him
compel those to confess him who were then
present for the purpose of proving and reasoning
with the talkative spirit, — those eminent men
worthlessness needs no demonstration. Even our anonymous author
does not venture to call it certain.
-5 e7riTpon-o5: a steward, or administrator of funds. The exist-
ence of such an officer shows that the Montanists formed a compact
organization at an early date, and that much stress was laid upon it
(cf. chap. i8, § 2). According to Jerome (Ep. ad Rlarccllatii;
Migne, Ep. XLI. 3) the Montanists at Pepuza had three classes of
officers: first, Patriarchs; second, Coionie; third. Bishops (Habent
eniin priiitos de Pepusa Phrygice Patriarchas: scctiiidos, qiios
appellant Cenonas: atqice ita in ttrtiniii, id est, fienc ultivnivt
locum Episcopi dcvolvnntur'). The peculiar word CV«07;«j occurs
nowhere else, so far as I am aware, but its meaning is plain enough.
Whether it is merely a reproduction of the Greek oifcoio/uoi ("ad-
ministrators "), or whether it is a Latin word connected with ca'tia,
in either case the officers designated by it were economic officers,
and thus performed the same class of duties as this innpoTto^,
Theodotus. The reliability of Jerome's report is confirmed by its
agreement in this point with the account of the Anonymous. Of
Theodotus himself (to be distinguished, of course, from the two
Theodoti mentioned in chap. 28) we know only what is told us in
this chapter and in chap. 3, above. It is plain that he was a promi-
nent man among the early Montanists.
-" The reference here seems to be to a death like that recorded
by a common tradition of Simon Magus, who by the help of demons
undertook to fly up to heaven, but when in mid air fell and was
killed. Whether the report in regard to Theodotus was in any way
connected with the tradition of Simon's death we cannot tell, though
our author can hardly have thought of it, or he would certainly have
likened Theodotus' fate to that of the archherelic Simon, as he
likened the fate of Montanus and Maximilla to that of Judas. What-
ever the exact form of death referred to, there is of course no more
confidence to be placed in this report than in the preceding one.
=^' Of this Asterius Urbanus we know only what we can gather
from this reference to him. Valesius, Tillemont, and others sup-
posed that the words iv raj avTui K6yu> tw (card 'Aarepioi' Oi'p^oicii'
were a scholium written on the margin' of his copy by tuscbius
himself or some ancient commentator to indicate the authorship of
the anonymous work from which the fragments in this chapter are
taken (and so in the Antc-Nicnic Fathers, Vol. VII., Ihe^c frag-
ments are given as from the work of Asterius Urbanus). I'Ut Euse-
bius himself evidently did not know the author, and it is at any rate
much easier to suppose the words a part of the text, and the work
of Asterius a work which our anonymous author has been discussing
and from which he quotes the words of Maximilla, just below.
Accepting this most natural interpretation of the words, we learn
that Asterius Urbanus was a Montanist who had written a work in
defense of that sect.
-" Cf. note 21. above.
V. 17.1
MONTANISM.
233
18
and bishops, Zoticus,^ from the village Comana,
and Julian,'*" from Apaniea, whose mouths the
followers of Themiso^^ muzzled, refusing to per-
mit the false and seductive spirit to be refuted
by them."
Again in the same work, after saying
other things in refutation of the false proph-
ecies of Maximilla, he indicates the time when
he wrote these accounts, and mentions her
predictions in which she prophesied wars and
anarchy. Their falsehood he censures in the
following manner :
19 "And has not this been shown clearly to
be false ? For it is to-day more than thir-
teen years since the woman died, and there has
been neither a partial nor general war in the
world ; but rather, through the mercy of God,
continued peace even to the Christians." ^'■^ These
things are taken from the second book.
20 I will add also short extracts from the
third book, in which he speaks thus against
their boasts that many of them had suffered
martyrdom :
" When therefore they are at a loss, being re-
futed in all that they say, they try to take refuge
in their martyrs, alleging that they have many
martyrs, and that this is sure evidence of the
power of the so-called prophetic spirit that is
with them. But this, as it appears, is en-
21 tirely fallacious.^ For some of the heresies
have a great many martyrs ; but surely we
shall not on that account agree with them or
-^ Of this Bishop Zoticus we know only what is told us here and
in chap. 18, § 13. On the proposed identification of Zoticus and
Sotas, bishop of Anchialus, see chap. 19, note 10.
Comana (Koixavrj^, according to most of the MSS. and editors;
Koufiai/rjs, according to a few of the MSS. followed by Laemmer and
Heinichen) was a village of Pamphylia, and is to be distinguished
from Comana in Pontus and from Comana in Cappadocia (Armenia),
both of which were populous and important cities.
™ Of this Julian we know nothing more. His city was Apamea
Cibotus or Ciboti, which, according to Wiltsch, was a small town on
Mount Signia in Pisidia, to be distinguished from the important
Phrygian Apamea Cibotus on the Ma;ander. Whether Wiltsch
has good grounds for this distinction I am unable to say. It would
certainly seem natural to think in the present case of Apamea on
the Maeander, inasmuch as it is spoken of without any qualifying
phrase, as if there could be no doubt about its identity.
31 Themiso is mentioned again in chap. 18 as a confessor, and as
the author of a catholic epistle. It is plain that he was a prominent
man among the Montanists in the time of our anonymous author,
that is, after the death of Montanus himself; and it is quite likely
that he was, as Salmon suggests, the head of the sect.
■^- This gives us a clear indication of the date of the composition
of this anonymous work. The thirteen years must fall either before
the wars which began in the reign of Septimius Severus, or after
their completion. The earliest possible date in the latter case is 232,
and this is certainly much too late for the composition of this work,
which speaks of Montanism more than once as a recent thing, and
which it seems clear from other indications belongs rather to the
earlier period of the movement. If we put its composition before
those wars, we cannot place it later than 192, the close of the reign
of Commodus. This would push the date of Maximilla's death back
to 179, which, though it seems rather early, is not at all impossible.
The period from about 179 to 192 might very well be called a time
of peace by the Christians; for no serious wars occurred during that
interval, and we know that the Christians were left comparatively
undisturbed throughout the reign of Commodus.
2^ Our author tacitly admits in this paragraph, what he has de-
nied in § 12, above, that the Montanists had martyrs among their
number; and having admitted it, he endeavors to explain away its
force. In the previous paragraph he had claimed that the lack of
martyrs among them proved that they were heretics; here he claims
that the existence of such martyrs does not in any way argue for
their orthodoxy. The inconsistency is glaringly apparent (cf. the
remarks made in note 23, above).
confess that they hold the truth. And first, in-
deed, those called Marcionites, from the heresy
of Marcion, say that they have a multitude of
martyrs for Christ ; yet they do not confess
Christ himself in truth."
A little farther on he continues : 22
" When those called to martyrdom from
the Church for the truth of the faith have met
with any of the so-called martyrs of the Phrygian
heresy, they have separated from them, and died
without any fellowship with them,^' because they
did not wish to give their assent to the sjjirit of
Montanus and the women. And that this is true
and took place in our own time in Apamea on
the Mseander,^' among those who suffered mar-
tyrdom with Gaius and Alexander of Eumenia,
is well known."
CHAPTER XVII.
ATiltiades and his Works.
In this work he mentions a writer, Mil-
tiades,^ stating that he also wrote a certain
3* This shows the bitterness of the hostility of the Catholics
toward the Montanists. That even when suffering together for the
one Lord they could not recognize these brethren seems very sad,
and it is not to be wondered at that the Montanists felt themselves
badly used, and looked upon the Catholics as " slayers of the proph-
ets," &c. More uncompromising enmity than this we can hardly
imagine. That the Catholics, however, were sincere in their treat-
ment of the Montanists, we cannot doubt. It is clear that they
firmly believed that association with them meant association with
the devil, and hence the deeper their devotion to Christ, the deeper
must be their abhorrence of these instruments of Satan. Compare,
for instance, Polycarp's words to Marcion, quoted in Bk. IV. chap.
14, above. The attitude of these Catholic martyrs is but of a piece
with that of nearly all the orthodox Fathers toward heresy. It only
shows itself here in its extremest form.
^^ Apamea Cibotus in Eastern Phrygia, a large and important
commercial center. Of the two martyrs, Gains and Alexander, we
know only what is told us here. They were apparently both of
them from Eumenia, a Phrygian town lying a short distance north
of Apamea. We have no means of fixing the date of the martyr-
doms referred to here, but it seems natural to assign them to ihe
reign of Marcus Aurelius, after Montanism had become somewhat
widespread, and when martyrdoms were a common thing both in the
East and West. Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia, is referred to as a
martyr by Polycrates in chap. 24, but he can hardly have suffered
with the ones referred to here, or his name would have been men-
tioned instead of the more obscure names of Gaius and Alexander.
1 This Miltiades is known to us from three sources: from the
present chapter, from the Roman work quoted by Eusebius in chap.
28, and from Tertullian {adv. Val. chap. 5). Jerome also mentions
him in two places {de 7iir. ill. 39 and Efi. ad Magiiui/i ; Migne's
ed. Ep. 70, § 3), but it is evident that he derived his knowledge
solely from Eusebius. That Miltiades was widely known at the
end of the second century is clear from the notices of him by an
Asiatic, a Roman, and a Carthaginian writer. The position in which
he is mentioned by Tertullian and by the anonymous Roman writer
would seem to indicate that he flourished during the reign of Marcus
Aurelius. His Apology was addressed to the emperors, as we learn
from § 5, below, by which might be meant either Marcus Aurelius
and Lucius Verus (161-169), or Marcus Aurelius and Commodus
(177-180). Jerome states that he flourished during the reign of
Commodus {Floruit antein M. Antonini Com modi tcmporihus ;
Vallarsi adds a que after Comvtodi, thus making him flourish in the
times of M. Antoninus and Commodus, but there is no authority
for such an addition). It is quite possible that he w.as still alive in
the time of Commodus (though Jerome's statement is of no weight,
for it rests upon no independent authority), but he must at any rate
have written his Apology before the death of Marcus Aurelius. Ihe
only works of Miltiades named by our authorities are the anti-
Montanistic work referred to here, and the three mentioned by
Eusebius at the close of this chapter (two books Against the
Creeks, two books Against the Jews, and an Apology). Tertul-
lian speaks of him as an anti-Gnostic writer, so that it is clear that
he must have written another work not mentioned by Eusebius, and
it was perhaps that work that won for him the commendation of the
234
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 17.
book against the above-mentioned heresy. After
quoting some of their words, he adds :
" Having found these things in a certain work
of theirs in opposition to the work of the brother
Alcibiades,^ in which he shows that a prophet
ought not to speak in ecstasy,^ I made an
abridgment."
2 A Httle further on in the same work he
gives a hst of those who prophesied under
the new covenant, among whom he enumer-
ates a certain Ammia * and Quadratus,^ saying :
anonymous writer quoted in chap. 28, who ranks him with Justin,
Tatian, Iren^us, Melito, and Clement as one who had asserted the
divinity of Christ. Eusebius appears to have seen the three works
which he mentions at the close of this chapter, but he does not quote
from them, and no fragments of any of Miltiades' writings have been
preserved to us; he seems indeed to have passed early out of the
memory of the Church.
A very perplexing question is his relation to Montanism. Ac-
cording to Eusebius, he was the author of an anti-Montanistic work,
but this report is beset with serious difficulties. The extract which
Eusebius quotes just below as his authority has " Alcibiades," not
" Miltiades," according to the unanimous testimony of the MSS.
and versions. It is very difficult to understand how Miltiades, if it
stood originally in the text, could have been changed to Alcibiades.
Nevertheless, most editors have thought it necessary to make the
change in the present case, and most historians (including even
Harnack) accept the alteration, and regard Miltiades as the author
of a lost anti-Montanistic work. I confess that, imperative as this
charge at first sight seems to be, I am unable to believe that we are
justified in making it. I should be inclined to think rather that
Eusebius had misread his authority, and that, finding Miltiades re-
ferred to in the immediate context (perhaps the Montanist Mil-
tiades mentioned in chap. 16), he had, in a h.asty perusal of the
work, overlooked the less familiar name Alcibiades, and had con-
founded Miltiades with the author of the anti-Montanistic work
referred to here by our iVnonymous. He would then naturally iden-
tify him at once with the Miltiades known to him through other
works. If we suppose, as Salmon suggests, that Eusebius did not
copy his own extracts, but employed a scribe to do that work (as we
should expect so busy a man to do), it may well be that he simply
marked this extract in regard to the anti-Montanistic work without
noticing his blunder, and that the scribe, copying the sentence just
as it stood, correctly wrote Alcibiades instead of Miltiades. In con-
firmation of the supposition that Eusebius was mistaken in making
Miltiades the author of an anti-Montanistic work may be urged the
fact that TertuUian speaks of Miltiades with respect, and ranks him
with the greatest Fathers of the second century. It is true that the
term by which he describes him (ecc/csiantiu sophista) may not
(as Harnack maintains) imply as much praise as is given to Procu-
lus in the same connection; nevertheless TertuUian does treat Mil-
tiades with respect, and does accord him a high position among
ecclesiastical writers. But it is certainly difficult to suppose that
TertuUian can thus have honored a man who was known to have
written against Montanism. Still further, it must be noticed that
Eusebius himself had not seen Miltiades' anti-Montanistic work; he
knew it only from the supposed mention of it in this anonymous
work from which he was quoting. Certainly it is not, on the whole,
difficult to suppose him mistaken and our MSS. and versions cor-
rect. I therefore prefer to retain the traditional reading Alcibiades,
and have so translated. Of the Alcibiades who wrote the anti-
Montanistic treatise referred to, we know nothing. Upon Mil-
tiades, sec especially Harnack's Texte jnid Untcrsucliungcii, I. i,
p. 278 sqq., Otto's Corpus Apol. Christ. IX. 364 sqq., and Sal-
mon's article in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. III. 916.
- 'AAici/jidoou, with all the MSS. and versions, followed by Vale-
sius (in his text), by Burton, Laemmer, and Cruse; Nicephorus,
followed by V.alesius in his notes, and by all the other editors, and
by the translations of Stroth, Closs, and Stigloher, read MiAriaSou.
See the previous note.
2 This was the first work, so far as we know, to denounce the
practice of prophesying in ecstasy. The practice, which had doubt-
less fallen almost wholly into disuse, was brought into decided dis-
repute on account of the excesses of the Montanists, and the position
taken by this Alcibiades became very soon the position of the whole
Church (see the previous chapter, note 14).
* Of this prophetess Ammia of Philadelphia, we know only what
wc can gather from this chapter. She would seem to have lived
early in the second century, possibly in the latter part of the first,
and to have been a prophetess of considerable prominence. That
the Montanists had good ground for appealing to her, as well as to
the other prophets mentioned as their models, cannot be denied.
These early prophets were doubtless in their enthusiasm far more
like the Alontanislic prophets than like those whom the Church of
the latter part of the second century alone wished to recognize.
^ This Quadratus is to be identified with the Quadratus men-
" But the false prophet falls into an ecstasy,
in which he is without shame or fear. Beginning
with purposed ignorance, he passes on, as has
been stated, to involuntary madness of soul.
They cannot show that one of the old or 3
one of the new prophets was thus carried
away in spirit. Neither can they boast of Aga-
bus,*' or Judas,'^ or Silas,* or the daughters of
Philip,'-' or Ammia in Philadelphia, or Quadratus,
or any others not belonging to them."
And again after a little he says : " For if 4
after Quadratus and Ammia in Philadelphia,
as they assert, the women with Montanus received
the prophetic gift, let them show who among
them received it from Montanus and the women.
For the apostle thought it necessary that the
prophetic gift should continue in all the Church
until the final coming. But they cannot show
it, though this is the fourteenth year since the
death of Maximilla." ^"^
He writes thus. But the Miltiades to 5
whom he refers has left other monuments
of his own zeal for the Divine Scriptures,^^
in the discourses which he composed against
the Greeks and against the Jews,^^ answering
each of them separately in two books." And in
addition he addresses an apology to the earthly
rulers," in behalf of the philosophy which he
embraced.
tioned in Bk. III. chap. 37, and was evidently a man of prominence
in the East. He seems to have been a contemporary of .-^mmia, or to
have belonged at any rate to the succession of the earliest prophets.
He is to be distinguished from the bishop of .'\thens, mentioned in
Bk. IV. chap. 23, and also in all probability from the apologist, men-
tioned in Bk. IV. chap. 3. Cf. Harnack, Texte utid Uuters. I. i.
p. 102 and 104; and see Bk. III. chap. 37, note i, above.
'' On Agabus, see Acts xi. 28, .xxi. 10.
' On Judas, see Acts xv. 22, 27, 32.
* On Silas, see Acts xv.-xviii. /«.?«';« / also 2 Cor. i. 19, i Thess.
i. I, 2 Thess. i. i, and i Pet. v. 12, where Silvanus (who is probably
the same man) is mentioned.
'■> On the daughters of Philip, see Acts xxi. 9; also Bk. III. chap.
31, note 8, above.
1" On the date of Maximilla's death, see the previous chapter,
note 32. To what utterance of" the apostle" (o aTrbcTToAo';, which
commonly means Paul) our author is referring, I am not .able to dis-
cover. I can find nothing in his writings, nor indeed in the New
Testament, which would seem to have suggested the ide.a which he
here attributes to the apostle. The argument is a little obscure, but
the writer apparently means to prove that the Montanists are not a
part of the true Church, because the gift of prophecy is a mark of
that Church, and the Montanists no longer possess that gift. This
seems a strange accusation to bring against the Montanists, — wc
might expect them to use such an argument against the Catholics.
In fact, we know that the accusation is not true, at least not entirely
so; for we know that there were Montanistic prophetesses in Ter-
tullian's church in Carthage later than this time, and also that
there was still a prophetess at the time Apollonius wrote (see
chap. 18, § 6), which was some years later than this (see chap. 18,
note 3).
■1 Trept Ta Acta Aoyia. These words are used to indicate the
Scriptures in Bk. VI. chap. 23, § 2, IX. 9. 7, X. 4. 28, and in the
Martyrs of Palestine, XI. 2.
12 ti/ T€ 015 Trpb? ''Y^\Ky\va.^ avv^ra^e A6yoi9, Kat T019 irpos *Iou-
Saiov;. Eusebius is the only one to mention these works, and no
fragments of either of them are now extant. See above, note i.
13 tKarepa t5ctu9 vnoOia^i tV Sutrii' viravTriaa^ trvyypdfj.fj.ao'n'.
'* Or, " to the rulers of the world " (n-pos tout KO<r/LtiKoi/s ap^oi'-
Ta?). Valesius supposed these words to refer to the provincial gov-
ernors, but it is far more natural to refer them to the reigning em-
perors, both on account of the form of the phrase itself and also
because of the fact that it was customary with all the apologists
to address their apologies to the emperors themselves. In regard to
the particular emperors addressed, see above, note i.
V. iS.]
ArOLLONIUS ON MONTANISM.
235
CHAPTER XVIII.
77/6' Matiner in which Apollonius refuted the
Phrygians, and the Persons ^ whom he men-
tions.
1 As the so-called Phrygian heresy - was still
flourishing in Phrygia in his time, Apollo-
nius ' also, an ecclesiastical writer, undertook its
refutation, and wrote a special work against it,
correcting in detail the false prophecies current
among them and reproving the life of the founders
of the heresy. But hear his own words respect-
ing Montanus :
2 " His actions and his teaching show who
this new teacher is. This is he who taught
the dissolution of marriage ; ■* who made laws
for fosting ; '" who named Pepuza and Tymion,*'
I
1 Ox events (tu'wc).
- On the name, see chap. 16, note 2.
3 Of this Apollonius we know little more than what Eusebius
tells us in this chapter. The author o{ Pmdesiiiiatus (in the fifth
century) calls him bishop of Ephesus, but his authority is of no
weight. Jerome devotes chap. 40 of his de vir. ill. to Apollonius,
but it is clear that he derives his knowledge almost exclusively from
Eusebius. He adds the notice, however, that Tertullian replied
to .A.pollonius' work in the seventh book of his own work, de Ecstasi
(now lost). The character of Apollonius' work may be gathered
from the fragments preserved by Eusebius in this chapter. It was
of the same nature as the work of the anonymous writer quoted in
chap. 16, very bitter in tone and not over-scrupulous in its state-
ments. Apollonius states (see in § 12, below) that he wrote the
work forty years after the rise of Montanism. If we accepted the
Eusebian date for its beginning (172), this would bring us down to
212, but (as remarked above, in chap. 16, note 12) Montanism had
probably begun in a quiet way sometime before this, and so Apol-
lonius' forty years are perhaps to be reckoned from a somewhat
earlier date. His mention of "the prophetess" as still living (in
§ 6, below) might lead us to think that Maximilla was still alive
when he wrote; but when the anonymous wrote she was already
dead, and the reasons for assigning the latter to a date as early as
ig2 are too strong to be set aside. We must therefore suppose
Apollonius to be referring to some other prophetess well known in
his time. That there were many such prophetesses in the early
part of the third century is clear from the works of Tertullian.
Jerome {ibid.) states that an accoimt of the death of Montanus and
his prophetesses by hanging was contained in Apollonius' work, but
it has been justly suspected that he is confusing the work of the
anonymous, quoted in chap. 16, above, with the work of Apollonius,
quoted in this chapter. The fragments of Apollonius' work, pre-
served by Eusebius, are given, with a commentarj', in Routh's Rel.
Sac. I. p. 467 sq., and an English translation in the Aiite-Niccne
Fathers, VlH. p. 775 sq.
■* We are not to gather from this that the Montanists forbade
marriage. They were, to be sure, decidedly ascetic in their tendencies,
and they did teach the unlawfulness of second marriages, — which
had long been looked upon with disfavor in many quarters, but
whose lawfulness the Church had never denied, — and magnified the
blessedness of the single state; but beyond this they did not go, so
far as we are able to judge. Our chief sources for the Montanistic
view of marriage are TertuUian's works ad U.vorein, de Pudicit.,
de Monogamia, de Exhort, ad castitat., and Epiphanius' H<er.
XLVIII.9.
'• One great point of dispute between the Montanists and the
Catholics w.as the subject of fasts (cf. Hippolytus, VIII. 12, X. 21,
who makes it almost the only ground of complaint against the Mon-
tanists). The Montanist prophetesses ordained two new fasts of a
week each in addition to the annual paschal fast of the Church; and
the regulations for these two weeks were made very severe. Still
further they extended the duration of the regular weekly (Wednes-
day and Friday) fasts, making them cover the whole instead of only
a part of the day. The Catholics very strenuously opposed these
ordinances, not because they were opposed to fasting (many of them
indulged extensively in the practice), but because they objected to
the imposition of such extra fasts as binding upon the Church. They
were satisfied with the traditional customs in this matter, and did not
care to have heavier burdens imposed upon the Christians in general
than their fathers had borne. Our principal sources for a knowledge
of the dispute between the Montanists and Catholics on this subject
areTertullian'srfi? Jejuniis; Epiphanius, Hcer. XLVIII. 8; Jerome,
Ep. ad Marcellam (Migne, Ep. XLI. 3), Coiiunent. in Matt. c.
9, vers. 15; and Theodoret, Hcer. Fab. III. 2.
6 Pepuza was an obscure town in the western part of Phrygia;
Tymion, otherwise unknown, was probably situated in the same
small towns in Phrygia, Jenisalem, wishing to
gather people to them from all directions ; who
appointed collectors of money ; ^ who contrived
the receiving of gifts under the name of offer-
ings ; who provided salaries for those who
preached his doctrine, that its teaching might
prevail through gluttony."**
He writes thus concerning Montanus ; 3
and a little farther on he writes as follows
concerning his prophetesses : " We show that
these first prophetesses themselves, as soon as
they were filled with the Spirit, abandoned their
husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who
call Prisca a virgin." '^
Afterwards he says : " Does not all Scrip- 4
ture seem to you to forbid a prophet to re-
ceive gifts and money ?^° When therefore I sec
the prophetess receiving gold and silver and
costly garments, how can I avoid reproving
her?"
And again a little farther on he speaks 5
thus concerning one of their confessors :
" So also Themiso," who was clothed with
plausible covetousness, could not endure the
sign of confession, but threw aside bonds for
an abundance of possessions. Yet, though he
should have been humble on this account, he
dared to boast as a martyr, and in imitation of
the apostle, he wrote a certain catholic *- epistle.
neighborhood. Pepuza was early made, and long continued, the
chief center — the Jerusalem — of the sect, and even gave its name
to the sect in many quarters. Harnack has rightly emphasized the
significance of this statement of Apollonius, and has called attention
to the fact that IMontanus' original idea must have been the gathering
of the chosen people from all the world into one region, that they
might form one fold, and freed from all the political and social rela-
tions in which they had hitherto lived might await the coming of
the Lord, who would speedily descend, and set up his kingdom in
this new Jerusalem. Only after this idea had been proved imprac-
ticable did Montanism adapt itself to circumstances and proceed to
establish itself in the midst of society as it existed in the outside
world. That Montanus built upon the Gospel of John, and espe-
cially upon chaps, x. and xvii., in this original attempt of his, is per-
fectly plain (cf. Harnack's Doginengcschichte , I. p. 319 and 323.
With this passage from Apollonius, compare also Epiphanius, Hcer.
XLVIII. 14 and XLIX. i, and Jerome Ep. ad Marcellam) .
' This appointment of economic officers and the formation of a
compact organization were a part of the one general plan, referred to
in the previous note, and must have marked the earliest years of the
sect. Later, when it was endeavoring to adapt itself to tlie catholic
Church, and to compromise matters in such a way as still to secure
recognition from the Church, this organization must have been looked
upon as a matter of less importance, and indeed probably never went
far beyond the confines of Phrygia. That it continued long in that
region, however, is clear from Jerome's words in his Epistle to
Marcella already referred to. Compare also chap 16, note 25.
8 There can be little doubt that the Church teachers and other
officers were still supported by voluntary contributions, and hence
Apollonius was really scandalized at what he considered making mer-
chandise of spiritual things (cf. the Didache, chaps. XI. and XII.;
but even in the Didache we find already a sort of stated salary pro-
vided for the prophets; cf. chap. XII.). For him to conclude,
however, from the practice instituted by the Montanists in accordance
with their other provisions for the formation of a compact organi-
zation, that they were avaricious and gluttonous, is quite unjus-
tifiable, just as much so as if our salaried clergy to-day should be
accused, as a class, of such sins.
" See chap. 16, note 18. i" See note 8.
1' On Themiso, see chap. 16, note 31.
12 Ko-QoKiKr^v e?ri<TToA>)i'. Catholic in the sense in which the
word is used of the epistles of James, Peter, John, and Judc; that is,
general, addressed to no particular church. The epistle is no longer
extant. Its " blasphemy " against the Lord and his apostles lay
undoubtedly in its statement of the fundamental doctrine of the
Montanists, that the age of revelation had not ceased, but that
through the promised Paraclete revelations were still given, which
supplemented or superseded those granted the apostles by Christ.
236
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[v. iS.
to instruct those whose faith was better than his
own, contending for words of empty sound, and
blaspheming against the Lord and the apostles
and the holy Church."
6 And again concerning others of those
honored among them as martyrs, he writes
as follows :
" Not to speak of many, let the prophetess
herself tell us of Alexander, ^^ who called himself
a martyr, with whom she is in the habit of ban-
queting, and who is worshiped ^^^ by many. We
need not mention his robberies and other daring
deeds for which he was punished, but the
7 archives '* contain them. Which of these
forgives the sins of the other? Does the
prophet the robberies of the martyr, or the
martyr the covetousness of the prophet? For
although the Lord said, ' Provide neither gold,
nor silver, neither two coats,' ^^ these men, in
complete opposition, transgress in respect to the
possession of the forbidden things. For we will
show that those whom they call prophets and
martyrs gather their gain not only from rich
men, but also from the poor, and orphans,
8 and widows. But if they are confident, let
them stand up and discuss these matters,
that if convicted they may hereafter cease trans-
gressing. For the fruits of the prophet must be
tried ; ' for the tree is known by its fruit.' ^^
9 But that those who wish may know con-
cerning Alexander, he was tried by ^mi-
lius Frontinus,^^ proconsul at Ephesus ; not on
account of the Name,^** but for the robberies
which he had committed, being already an apos-
tate.'''' Afterwards, having falsely declared for
the name of the Lord, he was released, having
deceived the faithful that were there.^ And his
^•^ This fragment gives us our only information in regard to this
Alexander. That there may be some truth in the story told by
Apollonius cannot be denied. It is possible that Alexander was a
bad man, and that the Montanists had been deceived in him, as
often happens in all religious bodies. Such a thing might much
more easily happen after the sect had been for a number of years in
a flourishing condition than in its earlier years; and the exactness
of the account, and the challenge to disprove it, would seem to lend
it some weight. At the same time Apollonius is clearly as unprin-
cipled and dishonest a writer as the anonymous, and hence little re-
liance can be placed upon any of his reports to the discredit of the
Montanists. If the anonymous made so many accusations out of
whole cloth, Apollonius may have done the same in the present in-
stance; and the fact that many still " worshiped" him would seem to
show that Apollonius" accusations, if they possessed any foundation,
were at any rate not proven.
13C A very common accusation brought against various sects.
Upon the significance of it, see Harnack, Dogmcngcschichte , I.
p. 82, note 2.
J-* ojrio-9d5oM09, originally the back chamber of the old temple of
Athencu on the Acropolis at Athens, where the public treasure was
kept. It then came to be used of the inner chamber of any temple
where the public treasure was kept, and in the present instance is
used of the apartment which contained the public records or archives.
Just below, Apollonius uses the phrase \y\ii.6(n.ov apxelov, in refer-
ring to the same thing.
'ii Matt. X. 9, 10. ^<'' Matt. xii. 33.
" We know, unfortunately, nothing about this proconsul, and
hence have no means of fixing the date of this occurrence.
^* i.e. of Christ.
'" Trapo/Bdrt)?.
*' flra tTriipivcaiJLevof t<Z oi/d^ari ToC Kvpiov ajroAeAuTai jrAai/rj-
o-as Tou? t'xei TTicTTou?. Tfie meaning seems to be that while in
prison he pretended to be a Christian, and thus obtained the favor
of the brethren, who procured his release by using their influence
with the judge.
own parish, from which he came, did not receive
him, because he was a robber.-' Those who
wish to learn about him have the public records "
of Asia. And yet the prophet with whom he
spent many years knows nothing about
him !^ Exposing him, through him we ex- 10
pose also the pretense -^ of the prophet. We
could show the same thing of inany others. But if
they are confident, let them endure the test."
Again, in another part of his work he 11
speaks as follows of the prophets of whom
they boast :
" If they deny that their prophets have re-
ceived gifts, let them acknowledge this : that if
they are convicted of receiving them, they are
not prophets. And we will bring a multitude
of proofs of this. But it is necessary that all
the fruits of a prophet should be examined.
Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair?*^ Does
a prophet stain his eyelids ? -^ Does a prophet
delight in adornment? Does a prophet play
with tables and dice ? Does a prophet lend on
usury? Let them confess whether these things
are lawful or not ; but I will show that they
have been done by them."-'''
This same Apollonius states in the same 12
work that, at the time of his writing, it was
the fortieth year since Montanus had begun
his pretended prophecy."** And he says 13
also that Zoticus, who was mentioned by
the former writer,^ when Maximilla was pre-
tending to prophesy in Pepuza, resisted her and
endeavored to refute the spirit that was working
in her ; but was prevented by those who agreed
with her. He mentions also a certain Thraseas^"
among the martyrs of that time.
He speaks, moreover, of a tradition that the
Saviour commanded his apostles not to depart
from Jerusalem for twelve years.^' He uses tes-
timonies also from the Revelation of John,"- and
21 We have no means of controlling the truth of this statement.
-- 5i7;u.6<rtoi' ap\€iop.
^ 01' 6 7rpoci)r)Tr)9 crvfOfTa ttoAAoi? trecnv ayvod, as is read by
all the MSS., followed by the majority of the editors. Heinichen
reads ui 6 7rpo</)i;T7)? avviiv ttoAAoi? tTeaiv dyi-oei, but the emenda-
tion is quite unnecessary. The ayvoil implies ignorance of the man's
true character; although with him so many years, he kiio'ws noth-
ing abotct him, is ignorant 0/ his true character .' The sentence
is evidently ironical. 24 ^^j, v-noaTaaiv.
-^ fidmeTai. "<'' o-Ti/Sc^erai.
-' Knowing what we do of the asceticism and the severe morality
of the Montanists, we can look upon the implications of this passage
as nothing better than baseless slanders. That there might have
been an individual here and there whose conduct justified this attack
cannot be denied, but to bring such accusations against the Montan-
ists in general was both unwarranted and absurd, and Apollonius
cannot but have been aware of the fact. His language is rather that
of a bully or braggadocio who knows the untruthfulness of his state-
ments, than of a man conscious of his own honesty and of the relia-
bility of his account.
2" On the date of Apollonius' work, see above, note 3.
-1 See chap. 16, § 17.
3" This Thrasc.as is undoubtedly to be identified with Thraseas,
" bishop and martyr of Eumenia," mentioned by Polycrates, as
quoted in chap. 24, below. Wc know no more about him than is
told us there.
31 Clement (Strom. VI. 5) records the same tradition, quoting
it from the Preaching o/" Peter , upon which work, see Bk. III. chap.
3, note 8, .above.
32 Compare Eusebius* promise in Bk. III. chap. 24, § 18, and see
note 21 on that chapter.
V. 20.]
SERAPION ON MONTANISM.
^Zl
he relates that a dead man had, through the
i;)ivine power, been raised by John himself in
Ephesus.^' He also adds other things by which
he fully and abundantly exposes the error of the
heresy of which we have been speaking. These
are the matters recorded by Apollonius.
CHAPTER XIX.
Serapion on the Heresy of the Phrygians.
1 Serapion,^ who, as report says, succeeded
Maximinus ^ at that time as bishop of the
church of Antioch, mentions the works of Apoli-
narius ^ against the above-mentioned heresy.
And he alludes to him in a private letter to
Caricus and Pontius,* in which he himself ex-
poses the same heresy, and adds the following
words : ^
2 " That you may see that the doings of
this lying band of the new prophecy, so
called, are an abomination to all the brother-
s' No one else, so for as I am aware, records this tradition, but
it is of a piece with many others in regard to John which were
afloat in the early Church.
' Both versions of the Chron. agree in putting the accession of
Serapion into the eleventh year of Commodus (igo a.d.), and that
of his successor Asclepiades into the first year of Caracalla, which
would give Serapion an episcopate of twenty-one years (Syncellus
says twenty-five years, although giving the same dates of accession
for both bishops that the other versions give). Serapion was a well-
known person, and it is not too much to think that the dates given
by the Cliron. in connection with him may be more reliable than
most of its dates. The truth is, that from the present chapter we
learn that he was already bishop before the end of Commodus' reign,
i.e. before the end of 192 a.d. Were the statement of Eutychius, —
tliat Demetrius of Alexandria wrote at the same time to Maximus
of Antioch and Victor of Rome, — to be relied upon, we could fix
his accession between 189 and 192 (see Harnack's Zeit des Ig-
natius, p. 4s). But the truth is little weight can be attached to
his report. While we cannot therefore reach certainty in the mat-
ter, there is no reason for doubting the approximate accuracy of
the date given by the Chron. As to the time of his death, we can fix
the date of Asclepiades' accession approximately in the year 211 (see
Bk. VI. chap. 11, note 6), and from the fragment of Alexander's
epistle to the Antiochenes, quoted in that chapter, it seems probable
that there had been a vacancy in the see of Antioch for some time.
But from the mention of Serapion's epistles to Domninus (Bk. VI.
chap. 12) we may gather that he lived until after the great persecu-
tion of Severus (a.d. 202 sq.). From Bk. VI. chap. 12, we learn that
Serapion was quite a writer; and he is commemorated also by Je-
rome {de vir. ill. c. 41) and by Socrates (//. E. III. 7). In addi-
tion to the epistle quoted here, he addressed to Domninus, accord-
ing to Bk. VI. chap. 12, a treatise (Jerome, ad Domninn>n . . .
volumen coitposiiit) , or epistle (the Greek of Eusebius reads sim-
ply Ta, but uses the same article to describe the epistle or epistles to
Caricus and Pontius, so that the nature of the writing is uncertain),
as well as some other epistles, and a work on the Gospel of Peter.
These were the only writings of his which Eusebius had seen, but
he reports that there were probably other works extant. There are
preserved to us only the two fragments quoted by Eusebius in these
two chapters. Serapion also played a prominent role in the tradition
of the Edessene church, as we learn from Zahn's Doctrina Addai
{Gott. Gel. A/iz. 1877, St. 6, p. 173, 179, according to Harnack's
Zeit des Ignatius, p. 46 sqq.).
2 On Maximinus, see Bk. IV. chap. 24, note 6.
3 See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note i.
* Caricus and Pontius (called Ponticus in this passage by most
of the MSS. of Eusebius, but Pontius by one of the best of them,
by Nicephorus, Jerome, and Eusebius himself in Bk. VI. chap. 12,
which authorities are followed by Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, and
Heinichen) are called in Bk. VI. chap. 12, e/ocArjcriatTTiKou? di'6p<i?.
They are otherwise unknown personages. In that chapter the plural
article ra is used of the writing, or writings, addressed to Caricus
and Pontius, implying that inrofjivrinaTa is to be supplied. This
seems to imply more than one writing, but it is not necessary to
conclude that more than the single epistle mentioned here is meant,
for the plural inroixvYifiaTa was often used in a sort of collective sense
to signify a collection of notes, memoranda, &c.
^ This fragment is given by Routh, Kel. Sacra, and, in English,
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775.
hood throughout the world, I have sent you
writings" of the most blessed Claudius Apolina-
rius, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia."
In the same letter of Serapion the signa- 3
tures of several bishops are found,^ one of
whom subscribes himself as follows :
" I, Aurelius Cyrenius, a witness,'' pray for your
health."
And another in this manner :
"^lius Publius Julius," bishop of Debeltum,
a colony of Thrace. As God liveth in the
heavens, the blessed Sotas in Anchialus desired
to cast the demon out of Priscilla, but the hypo-
crites did not permit him."^"
And the autograph signatures of many 4
other bishops who agreed with them are
contained in the same letter.
So much for these persons.
CHAPTER XX.
The Writings of Ircnccits against the Schistnatics
at Rome.
Iren^us^ wrote several letters against 1
those who were disturbing the sound ordi-
nance of the Church at Rome. One of them
was to Blastus On Schism ; " another to Florinus
•5 See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 5.
^ Valesius justly remarks that Eusebius does not say that these
bishops signed Serapion's epistle, but only that their signatures
or notes (u7roo-j)fieicoo-et?) were contained in the epistle. He thinks
it is by no means probable that a bishop of Thrace (the nationality
of the other bishops we do not know) should have signed this epistle
of Serapion's, and he therefore concludes that Serapion simply copies
from another epistle sent originally from Thrace. This is possible;
but at the end of the chapter Eusebius says that other bishops put
in their signatures or notes with their own hands (ai/ro-ypacfroi
crr)/xeiuJo-eis), which precludes the idea that Serapion simply copies
their testimony from another source, and if they signed thus it is
possible that the Thracian bishop did likewise. It may be that
Serapion took pains to compose a semi-official communication which
should have the endorsement of as many anti-Montanistic bishops as
possible, and that, in order to secure their signatures he sent it about
from one to the other before forwarding it to Caricus and Pontius.
* Of this Aurelius Cyrenius we know nothing. It is possible
that he means to call himself simply a witness (naprO?) to the facts
recorded by Serapion in his epistle, but more probable that he uses
the word to indicate that he has " witnessed for Christ" under perse-
cution.
'■' jEHus Publius Julius is also an otherwise unknown personage.
Debeltum and Anchialus were towns of Thrace, on the western
shore of the Black Sea.
1" Lightfoot {Ignatius, II. in) suggests that this Sotas (Scura?)
may be identical with the Zoticus (Zojtiko?) mentioned in the preced-
ing chapter, the interchange of the initial 2 and '/. being very common.
But we learn from chap. 16 that Zoticus was bishop of Comana, so
that he can hardly be identified with Sotas, bishop of Anchialus.
1 On Irenaeus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
2 Eusebius, in chap. 15, informs us that both Blastus and Flori-
nus drew many away from the church of Rome by their heretical
innovations. He does not tell us either there or here the nature of
the opinions which Blastus held, but from Pseudo-Tertullian's Ad7'.
omnes Hier. chap. 8, we learn that Blastus was a Quartodeciman.
(" In addition to all these, there is likewise Blastus, who would la-
tently introduce Judaism. For he says the passover is not to be
kept otherwise than according to the law of Moses, on the fourteenlh
of the month.") From Pacianus' Ef>istola ad Syjnpronian. de
catholico nomine, chap. 2, we learn that he was a Montanist ; and
since the Montanists of Asia Minor were, like the other Christians
of that region, Quartodecimans, it is not surprising that Blastus
should be at the same time a Montanist and a Quartodeciman.
Florinus, as will be shown in the next note, taught his heresies
while Victor was bishop of Rome (189-198 or 199) ; and since Euse-
bius connects Blastus so closely with him, we may conclude that
Blastus flourished at about the same time. Irenseus' epistle to Blas-
tus, On Schism, is no longer extant. A Syriac fragment of an
epistle of Irenaeus, addressed to " an Alexandrian," on the paschal
238
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 20.
On Monarchy,^ or That God is not the Author
of Evil. For Florinus seemed to be defending
this opinion. And because he was being drawn
away by the error of Valentinus, Irenteus wrote
his work On the Ogdoad/ in which he shows
question (Fragment 27 in Harvey's edition) is possibly a part of this
lost epistle. If the one referred to in this fragment be HIastus, he
was an Alexandrian, and in that case must have adopted the Quarto-
deciman position under the influence of the Asiatic Montanists, for
the paschal calendar of the Alexandrian church was the same as
that of Rome (see the Diet, of Christ, liiog. III. p. 264). If Blastus
was a Montanist, as stated by Pacianus, his heresy was quite different
from that of Florinus (who was a Gnostic) ; and the fact that they
were leaders of different heresies is confirmed by the words of
Eusebius in chap. 15, above: " Each one striving to introduce his
own innovations in respect to the truth." Whether Blastus, like
Florinus, was a presbyter, and like him was deposed from his office,
we do not know, but the words of Eusebius in chap. 15 seem to
favor this supposition.
3 Florinus, as we learn from chap. 15, was for a time a presbyter
of the Roman Church, but lost his office on account of heresy.
From the fragment of this epistle of Irenaeus to Florinus quoted by
Eusebius just below, we learn that Florinus was somewhat older
than Irenaeus, but like him a disciple of Polycarp. The title of this
epistle shows that Florinus was already a Gnostic, or at least in-
clined toward Gnostic views. Eusebius evidently had no direct
knowledge of the opinions of Florinus on the origin of evil, for
he says that he appeared to maintain {ihoKH ■npoaa-niC^n.v') the
opinion that God was the author of evil. Eusebius' conclusion is
accepted by most ancient and modern writers, but it is suggested by
Salmon {Diet, of Christ. Biog. II. 544) that Eusebius was perhaps
mist.aken, " for, since the characteristic of dualism is not to make
God the author of evil, but to clear him from the charge by ascrib-
ing evil to an independent origin, the title would lead us to think
that the letter was directed, not against one who had himself held
God to be the author of evil, but against one who had charged the
doctrine of a single first principle with necessarily leading to this
conclusion. And we should have supposed that the object of Ire-
naeus was to show that it was possible to assert God to be the sole
origin and ruler of the universe, without holding evil to be his work."
Since Eusebius had seen the epistle of Irenaeus to Florinus, it is diffi-
cult to understand how he can have misconceived Florinus' position.
At the same time, he does not state it with positiveness; and the fact
that Florinus, if not already, certainly was soon afterward a Valen-
tinian, and hence a dualist, makes Salmon's supposition very plausi-
ble. Florinus is not mentioned in Irena;us' great work against
heresies, nor by TertuUian, Pseudo-TertuUian, Hippolytus, or Epi-
phanius. It is probable, therefore, that he was not named in Hip-
polytus' earlier work, nor in the lectures of Irenaeus which formed
the groundwork (see Salmon, I.e.). The silence of Irenaeus is
easily explained by supposing Florinus' fall into heresy to have
talcen place after the composition of his lectures against heresies
and of his great work; and the silence of the later writers is prob-
aijly due to the fact that Irenajus' work makes no mention of him,
and that, whatever his influence may have been during his lifetime,
it did not last, and hence his name attracted no particular attention
after his death.
It has been maintained by some (e.g. Lightfoot, in the Contem-
porary Review, 1875, p. 834) that this epistle to Florinus was one of
the earliest of Irenaeus' writings but Lipsius {Diet, of Christ. Biog.
III. 263) has given other and satisfactory reasons for thinking that
Florinus' heresy, and therefore Irenxus' epistle and his work On
the Ogdoad, belonged to the time of Victor, and hence were later
than the work Against Heresies. A Syriac fragment of an epistle
concerning Florinus, addressed by Irenaeus to Victor (Harvey's edi-
tion, Fragm. 28), is extant, and .supports Lipsius' conclusion. It
would seem that Irena:;us, subsequent to the writing of his great
work, learning that Florinus was holding heretical opinions on the
origin of evil, addressed him the epistle mentioned in this chapter.
That afterward, Florinus having embraced Valentinianism, and hav-
ing written " an abominable book" (as the fragment just referred to
says), Irena;us wrote his work On the Ogdoad, and subsequently
addressed his epistle to Victor, calling upon him to take decisive
measures against Florinus, now seen to be a regular heretic. What
was the result of Irenaeus' epistles and book we do not know; we
hear nothing more about the matter, nor do we know anything more
about Florinus (for Augustine's mention of Florinus as the founder
of a sect of Floriniani is a mistake ; see Salmon, I.e.').
* This treatise, On the Oedoad, is no longer extant, though it is
probable that we have a few fragments of it (see Harvey, I. clxvi.).
The importance which Irenaeus attached to this work is seen from
the solemn adjuration with which he closed it. It must have been
largely identical in substance with the portions of his Ad?'. Hter.
which deal with the aeons of the Valentinians. It may have been little
more than an enlargement of those portions of the earlier work. The
Ogdoad (Greek, 6y56o?, a word signifying primarily a thing in eight
parts) occupied a prominent place in the speculations of the Gno.s-
tics. Valentinus taught eight primary a;ons, in four pairs, as the
root and origin of the other aeons and of all beings. These eight he
called the first or primary Ogdoad ; and hence a work upon the
Ogdoad, written against a Valentinian, must, of course, be a general
discussion of llie Valentinian doctrine of the a;ons. The word Og-
that he himself had been acquainted with
the first successors of the apostles.^ At the 2
close of the treatise we have found a most
beautiful note which we are constrained to insert
in this work." It runs as follows :
" I adjure thee who mayest copy this book,
by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious
advent when he comes to judge the living and
the dead, to compare what thou shalt write, and
correct it carefully by this manuscript, and also
to write this adjuration, and place it in the
copy."
These things may be profitably read in 3
his work, and related by us, that we may
have those ancient and truly holy men as the
best example of painstaking carefulness.
In the letter to Florinus, of which we 4
have spoken,^ Irenaeus mentions again his
intimacy with Polycarp, saying :
"These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak
mildly, are not of sound judgment. These
doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive
into the greatest impiety those who accept them.
These doctrines, not even the heretics outside
of the Church, have ever dared to publish.
These doctrines, the presbyters who were be-
fore us, and who were companions of the apos-
tles, did not deliver to thee.
" For when I was a boy, I saw thee in 5
lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splen-
dor in the royal court,* and endeavoring to
gain his approbation. I remember the 6
events of that time more clearly than those
of recent years. For what boys learn, growing
with their mind, becomes joined with it ; so that
I am able to describe the very place in which
the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and
his goings out and his comings in, and the man-
doad was not used by all the Gnostics in the same .sense. It was quite
commonly employed to denote the supercelestial region which lay
above the seven planetary spheres (or Hebdomad), and hence above
the control of the seven angels who severally presided over these
spheres. In the Valentinian system a higher sphere, the Pleroma,
the abode of the aeons, was added, and the supercelestial sphere, the
Ogdoad of the other systems, was commonly called the Mesotes, or
middle region. For further particulars in regard to the Ogdoad, see
Salmon's articles Hebdomad and Ogdoad in the Diet, of Christ. Biog.
^ Literally, " in which he shows that he himself had seized upon
(/caTciArj^eVai) the first succession {ti.a.i,o\-r\v) of the apostles." In
order to emphasize the fact that he was teaching true doctrine, he
pointed out, as he did so often elsewhere, the circumstance that he
was personally acquainted with disciples of the apostles.
^ It was not at all uncommon for copyists, both by accident and
by design, to make changes, often serious, in copying books. We
h.ave an instance of intentional alterations mentioned in Bk. IV.
chap. 23. It is not at all strange, therefore, that such an adjuration
should be attached to a work which its author considered especially
liable to corruption, or whose accurate transcription be regarded as
peculiarly important. Compare the warning given in Rev. xxii. i8,
19. The fragments from Irenxus' works preserved in this chapter
are translated in the Ante-Nieene Fathers, I. p. 568 sq.
' The epistle On Monarchy mentioned at the beginning of this
chapter.
* kv T19 0a(7iAiKJ7 0UA17. This expression is a little puzzling, as
the word flao-iXiioi implies the imperial court, and could not properly
be used of the provincial court of the proconsul. No sojourn of an
emperor in Asia Minor is known which will meet the chronology of
the case; and hence Lightfoot {Contemporary ReTiew, May, 1875,
p. 834) has offered the plausible suggestion that the words may have
been loosely employed to denote the court of Titus Atirclius Fulvus,
who was proconsul of Asia about 136 a.d., and afterward became the
emperor Antoninus Pius.
V. 21.]
THE MARTYRDOM OF APOLLONIUS AT ROME.
239
ner of his life, and his physical appearance, and
his discourses to the people, and the accounts
which he gave of his intercourse with John and
with the others who had seen the Lord. And
as he remembered their words, and what he
heard from them concerning the Lord, and con-
cerning his miracles and his teaching, having
received them from eyewitnesses of the 'Word
of life,' ^ Polycarp related all things in har-
7 mony with the Scriptures. These things
being told me by the mercy of God, I lis-
tened to them attentively, noting them down,
not on paper, but in my heart. And continually,
through God's grace, I recall them faithfully.
And I am able to bear witness before God that
if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard
any such thing, he would have cried out, and
stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would
have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times
hast thou spared me that I should endure these
things ? And he would have fled from the place
where, sitting or standing, he had heard
8 such words. ^'^ And this can be shown
plainly from the letters" which he sent,
either to the neighboring churches for their con-
firmation, or to some of the brethren, admon-
ishing and exhorting them."
Thus far Irenceus.
CHAPTER XXL
Hozcj ApoUonius si/ffejrd Martyrdom at Rome.
1 About the same time, in the reign of Com-
modus, our condition became more favora-
ble, and through the grace of Cxod the churches
throughout the entire world enjoyed peace,^ and
the word of salvation was leading every soul
from every race of man to the devout worship
of the God of the universe. So that now at
Rome many who were highly distinguished for
wealth and family turned with all their house-
hold and relatives unto their salvation.
2 But the demon who hates what is good,
being malignant in his nature, could not
endure this, but prepared himself again for con-
flict, contriving many devices against us. And
he brought to the judgment seat ApoUonius," of
" I John i. I.
10 This would have been quite like Polycarp, who appears to have
had a special horror of heretics. Compare his words to Marcion,
quoted above, in Bk. IV. chap. 14. He seems to have inherited this
horror from John the apostle, if Irenaeus' account is to be believed;
see Adv. Heer. III. 3, 4, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28,
and in Bk. IV. chap. 14.
'1 We know of only one epistle by Polycarp, that to the Philip-
pians, which is still extant. Upon his life and epistle, see Bk. IV.
chap. 14, notes 5 and 16.
1 Marcia, concubine of Commodus, and possessed of great influ-
ence over him, favored the Christians (according to Dion Cassius,
LXII. 4), and as a consequence they enjoyed comparative peace
during his reign.
- Jerome {de vir. ill. chap. 42, and Epist. ad Mag7iuvt, 4) calls
ApoUonius a Roman senator. It is possible that this is only a nat-
ural conclusion drawn by Jerome from Eusebius' statement that he
the city of Rome, a man renowned among the
faithful for learning and philosophy, having
stirred up one of his servants, who was well
fitted for such a purpose, to accuse him;''
But this wretched man made the charge 3
unseasonably, because by a royal decree
it was unlawful that informers of such things
should live. And his legs were broken imme-
diately, Perennius the judge having pro-
nounced this sentence upon him.'' But the 4
martyr, highly beloved of God, being ear-
defended himself before the Senate; and this possibility might seem
to be strengthened by the fact that Eusebius docs not call him a
senator here, as we should expect him to do if he knew him to be
one. On the other hand, it is highly probable (as shown in the next
note) that Jerome had read the fuller account of ApoUonius' martyr-
dom included by Eusebius in his Collection of Martyrdoms, zinA
hence it seems likely that that account contained the statement that
ApoUonius was a senator. Jerome makes ApoUonius the author of
an insigiie voluvicn, which he read in the Senate in defense of his
faith; but there seems to be no foundation for such a report. It is
apparently the result simply of a misunderstanding of the words of
Eusebius, who states that ApoUonius delivered before the Senate a
most eloquent defense of the faith, but does not imply that he wrote
an apology. The words that Eusebius uses at the close of this chap-
ter imply rather that the defense made by ApoUonius was recorded
after its deliverj', and that it is this report of it which can be read in
his Collection of Martyrdoms.
2 Jerome, followed by Sophronius, reports that the accusation
against ApoUonius was brought by a slave. Jerome gives the slave's
name as Severus {a servo Severe froditiis) ; while Sophronius
makes Severus the name of the judge {-napa. toO 6ov\ov napa 2e-
firipm TrpoSoSel? ^P"'"''"'"'"^ eii'ai). The latter is impossible, how-
ever, as the name of the judge was Perennius according to Eusebius.
Vallarsi states that some MSS. of Jerome read siii Coinmodo prin-
cipe ac Severe proditns, and supposes that ac Severe is a corrup-
tion for the words a servo (which he thinks may have stood alone in
the original text), and that some student, perceiving the error, wrote
upon the margin of his copy the words a servo, and that subse-
quently the note crept into the text, while the word Severe was still
retained, thus producing our present reading a servo Severe. This
is an ingenious suggestion, but the fact is overlooked that Sophronius
undoubtedly read in the original translated by him the words a servo
Severe, for we can explain his rendering only by supposing that he
read thus, but understood the word Severe as the dative of the indirect
object aiter proditns, instead of the ablative in apposition with serve.
In the face of Sophronius' testimony to the original form of the text,
no alteration of the common reading can be accepted. As to the
source of Jerome's Severus, since there is nothing in the present
chapter of Eusebius to suggest such an addition, and no reason can
be imagined for the independent insertion of the name, the only le-
gitimate conclusion seems to be, that the name occurred in the ac-
count of ApoUonius' martyrdom referred to by Eusebius just below,
and that Jerome took it thence. If this be so, then that martyrology
must have been the authority also for Jerome's statement that Apol-
lonius was accused by a slave; and hence the statement may be
accepted as true, and not as the result of a misinterpretation of the
reference of Eusebius' words (era ye jiva tmv ei? TavTa eTriTrjSei'uji'
aiJTci)), as supposed by some. Since it is thus almost certain that
Jerome had himself examined the fuller account of ApoUonius' mar-
tyrdom referred to by Eusebius, a favorable light is thrown back
upon his report that ApoUonius was a senator, and it becomes prob-
able that he obtained this statement from the same source (see the
previous note).
* M. de Mandajors, in his Histoire de I'Acad. des Inscript. tom.
i8, p. 226 (according to Gieseler's Ch. Hist., Harper's edition, I.
p. 127), " thinks that the slave was put to death as the betrayer of
his master, according to an old law renewed by Trajan ; but that
the occurrence had been misunderstood by the Christians, and had
given rise to the tradition, which is found in TertuUian and in the
Edictum ad Ceiiim. Asia:, that an emperor at this period had de-
creed the punishment of death for denouncing a Christian." Such a
law against the denunciation of masters by slaves was passed under
Nerva; but Gieseler remarks that, in accordance with the principles
of the laws upon this subject, " either ApoUonius only, or his slave
only, could have been put to death, but in no case both. Jerome
does not say either that Severus was the slave of ApoUonius, or that
he was executed; and since Eusebius grounds this execution ex-
pressly on a supposititious law, it may have belonged only to the
Oriental tradition, which may have adduced this instance in support
of the alleged law." It is possible that Gieseler is right in this con-
clusion; but it is also quite possible that Eusebius' statement that
the slave was executed is correct. The ground of the execution was,
of course, not, as Eusebius thinks, the fact that he brought an accu-
sation against a Christian, but, as remarked by de Mandajors, the
fact that, being a slave, he betrayed his master. Had the informant
been executed because he brought an accusation against a Christian,
the subsequent execution of the latter would be inexplicable. But
240
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 21.
nestly entreated and requested by the judge to
give an account of himself before the Senate,
made in the presence of all an eloquent defense
of the faith for which he was witnessing. And
as if by decree of the Senate he was put to death
by decapitation ; an ancient law requiring that
those who were brought to the judgment seat
and refused to recant should not be liber-
5 ated/ Whoever desires to know his argu-
ments before the judge and his answers to
the questions of Perennius, and his entire de-
fense before the Senate will find them in the
records of the ancient martyrdoms which we
have collected.'^
CHAPTER XXII.
Tlie Bishops thai 7uere well known at this Tifnc.
In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus,
Victor ^ succeeded Eleutherus/ the latter having
it is conceivable that the prefect Perennius may have sentenced the
informant to death, in accordance with the old law mentioned by de
Mandajors, and that then, Apollonius being a senator, he may have
requested him to appear before that body, and make his defense to
them, in order that he might pass judgment upon him in accordance
with the decision of the Senate. It is cjuite conceivable that, the
emperor being inclined to favor the Christians, Perennius may not
have cared to pass judgment against Apollonius until he had learned
the opinion of the Senate on the matter (cf. what Neander has to say
on the subject, in his Ch. Hist.). As remarked by Valesius, the
Senate was not a judicial court, and hence could not itself sentence
Apollonius; but it could, of course, communicate to the prefect its
opinion, and he could then pass judgment accordingly. It is signifi-
cant that the Greek reads iatrav ano Soy/xaTO'; crvyK^riTov, inserting
the particle uia-ai', " as if" ; i.e. " as if by decree of the Senate."
^ Valesius thinks the reference here is to Pliny's rescript to Tra-
jan (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33). This is possible, though the
language of Eusebius seems to imply a more general reference to all
kinds of cases, not simply to the cases of Christians.
'' On Eusebius' great Collection of Martyrdoms, which is now
lost, see above, p. 30.
' The dates assigned to Victor's episcopate by the ancient authori-
ties vary greatly. Eusebius here puts his accession in the tenth
year of Commodus (i.e. i8g a.d.), and this is accepted by Lipsius as
the correct date. Jerome's version of the Chron. puts his accession
in the reign of Pertinax, or the first year of Septimius Severus (i.e.
193), while the Armenian version puts it in the seventh year of Com-
modus (186). Eusebius, in his History, does not state directly the
duration of his episcopate, but in chap. 28 he says that Zephyrinus
succeeded him about the ninth year of Severus, i.e. according to his
erroneous reckoning (see Ek. VI. chap. 21, note 3) about 200, which
would give Victor an episcopate of about eleven years. Jerome, in
his version of the Chroti. and in his de vir. ill., assigns him ten
years; the Armenian version of the Chron. twelve years. The
Liberian Catalogue makes his episcopate something over nine years
long; the Felician Catalogue somethmg over ten. Lipsius, consid-
ering Victor in connection with his successors, concludes that he
held office between nine and ten years, and therefore gives as his
dates 189-198 or 199 (see p. 172 sq.). According to an anonymous
writer quoted in ch.ap. 28, Victor excommunicated Theodotus of
Byzantium for teaching that Christ was a mere man. He is best
known, however, on account of his action in connection with the
great Quartodcciman controversy (see chap. 24). Jerome, in his
version of the Chron., says of him ciijiis viediocria de rcligionc
extant volumina, and in his de vir. ill. chap. 34, he tells us that
he wrote upon the passover, and also some other works {sn/>rr
qucestione I'ascho', et alia (fitiedam scribens o/>:tscula). Har-
nack believes that he has discovered one of these works (all of
which have been supposed lost) in the Pseudo-Cyprianic de Alra-
toribus. In his Texte iind Unters. Bd. V. Heft 1, he has discussed
the subject in a very learned and ingenious manner. The theory
has much to commend it, but there are difficulties in its way which
have not yet been removed; and 1 am inclined to think it a product
of the first half of the third century, rather than of the last quarter of
the second (see the writer's review of Harnack's discussion in the
Presbyterian Review, Jan., 1889, p. 143 sq(i.).
2 On Elcutherus, see the Introduction to this book, note 2. As
remarked there, Eleiithcrus, according to the testimony of most of
our sources, held office fifteen years. The " thirteen years " of this
chapter are therefore an error, clearly caused by the possession on
held the episcopate for thirteen years. In the
same year, after Julian ' had completed his tenth
year, Demetrius'* received the charge of the par-
ishes at Alexandria. At this time the above-
mentioned Serapion,^ the eighth from the apos-
tles, was still well known as bishop of the church
at Antioch. Theophilus ^ presided at Caesarea
in Palestine ; and Narcissus,' whom we have
mentioned before, still had charge of the church
at Jerusalem. Bacchylus * at the same time was
bishop of Corinth in Greece, and Polycrates ^ of
the part of Eusebius of a trustworthy tradition that he died in the
tenth year of Commodus, which, since he incorrectly put his acces-
sion into the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (or Antoninus
Verus, as he calls him), made it necessary for him to draw the false
conclusion that he held office only thirteen years.
•' On Julian, bishop of Alexandria, see chap. 9, note 2.
* The date of the accession of Demetrius, the eleventh bishop of
Alexandria, as given here and in the Chron., was i8g a.d. Accord-
ing to Bk. VI. chap. 26, below, confirmed by the Chron., he held
office forty-three years. There is no reason for doubting the ap-
proximate accuracy of these dates. Demetrius is known to us chiefly
because of his relations to Origen, which were at first friendly, but
finally became hostile. He seems to have been a man of great energj',
renowned as an administrator rather than .^s a literary character.
He was greatly interested in the catechetical school at Alexandria,
but does not seem to have taught in it, and he left no writings, so
far as we know. His relations with Origen will come up frequently
in the Sixth Book, where he is mentioned a number of times (see
especially chap. 8, note 4).
^ On Serapion^ bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 19.
c Theophilus, bishop of Casarea, has gained prominence chiefly
on account of his connection with the paschal controversy. He
presided with Narcissus over the council mentioned in the next
chapter, which was called to consider the paschal question, and in
conjunction with the other bishops present composed an epistle,
which was still extant in Eusebius' time (according to the next
chapter), and of which he gives a fragment in chap. 25. Jerome, in
his de vir. ill. c. 43, speaks very highly of this epistle {synodicatn
valde ntiloii composuii epistolam) ; but it seems to have been no
longer extant in his time, for in mentioning it and the epistle of
Bacchylus of Corinth and others in his Chron., he says that the
memory of them still endured (quariini tnemoria ad nos usgue
perduraf). The dates of Theophilus' accession to office and of his
death are not known to us.
' On Narcissus, see above, chap. 12.
8 This Bacchylus is possibly identical with the Bacchylides who
is mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 23 as one of those who had urged
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, to write a certain epistle. Bacchylus
also is prominent solely on account of his connection with the pas-
ch.al controversy. According to the next chapter, he was himself
the author of an epistle on the subject, which he wrote, according to
Jerome {^de vir. ill. c. 44), in the name of all the bishops of Achaia
(c.r omtiiiiin gtii in Achaia erant episcopornm persona"). But
the words of Eusebius seem to imply that the epistle was an indi-
vidual, not a synodical one, for he does not say, " an epistle of those
in," &c., as he does in every other case. We must conclude, there-
fore, that Jerome, who had not seen the epistle, was mistaken in
making it a synodical letter. Jerome characterizes it as an elegant
composition (elegantem libruvi) ; but, like the epistle of Theophilus,
mentioned in the preceding note, it seems not to have been extant in
Jerome's time. "The dates of Bacchylus' accession to office and of
his death are not known to us.
* Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, is one of the most noted men
connected with the paschal controversy, for the reason that he was
the leader of the bishops of the province of Asia, in which province
alone the Quartodcciman practice was uniformly observed. He was
thus the leading opponent of Bishop Victor of Rome. His relation
to the paschal controversy is brought out more fully in chap. 24.
The dates of Polycrates' accession to office and of his death are
not known to us; though, of course, with Theophilus, Narcissus,
B.acchylus, and the other bishops concerned in the paschal contro-
versy, he flourished during the reign of Septimius Severus, while
Victor was bishop of Rome. The only writing of Polycrates of
which we know is his epistle to Victor, a portion of which is quoted
by Eusebius, in Bk. III. chap. 31, and a still larger portion in chap.
24 of this book.
Jerome, in his de vir. ill. c. 45, speaks in terms of the highest
praise of Polycrates, and quotes from Eusebius the larger fragment,
given in chap. 24, adding, Hiec proptcrea posiii, ut ingeniinn et
auctoritatem viri ex parvo opusciilo denwnstrarem. The fact
th.at he quotes only the passages given by Eusebius would be enough
to show that he quoted from Eusebius, and not directly from Poly-
crates, even were it not plain from the statement in his Cliroti., re-
ferred to in note 6, that Polycrates' epistle was, so far as Jerome
knew, no longer extant. Polycrates himself informs us, in the sec-
ond fr.agment given in chap. 24, that he wrote his epistle with the
consent and approval of all the bishops present at the council sum-
V. 23.1
THE PASCHAL OUESTION.
241
the parish of Ephesus. And besides these a
multitude of others, as is likely, were then prom-
inent. But we have given the names of those
alone, the soundness of whose faith has come
down to us in writing.
CHAPTER XXIII.
The Question then agitated concerni?ig the
Passover.
1 A QUESTION of no small importance arose
at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as
from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth
day of the moon, on which day the Jews were com-
manded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed
as the feast of the Saviour's passover.^ It was
moned by him to discuss the paschal question. The fact that both
Eusebius and Jerome praise Polycrates so highly, and testify to his
orthodoxy, shows how completely the paschal question had been
buried before their time, and how little the Quartodeciman practice
was feared.
1 The great question of dispute between the church of Asia
Minor and the rest of Christendom was whether the paschal com-
munion should be celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan, or on the
Sunday of the resurrection festival, without regard to Jewish chro-
nology. The Christians of Asia Minor, appealing to the example of
the apostles, John and Philip, and to the uniform practice of the
Church, celebrated the Christian passover always on the fourteenth
of Nisan, whatever day of the week that might be, by a solemn fast,
and closed the day with the communion in commemoration of the
last paschal supper of Christ. The Roman church, on the other
hand, followed by all the rest of Christendom, celebrated the death
of Christ always on Friday, and his resurrection on the Sunday fol-
lowing the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and continued
their paschal fast until the latter day. It thus happened that the
fast of the Asiatic Christians, terminating, as it did, with the four-
teenth of Nisan, often closed some days before the fast of the other
churches, and the lack of uniformity occasioned great scandal. As
Schaff says: " The gist of the paschal controversy was, whether the
Jewish paschal day (be it a Friday or not) or the Christian Sunday
should control the idea and time of the entire festival." The former
practice emphasized Christ's death; the latter his resurrection. The
first discussion of the question took place between Polycarp and
Anicetus, bishop of Rome, when the former was on a visit to that
city, between 150 and 155. Irenaeus gives an account of this, which
is quoted by Eusebius in chap. 25. Polycarp clung to the Asiatic
practice of observing the 14th of Nisan, but could not persuade Ani-
cetus to do the same, nor could Anicetus persuade him not to ob-
serve that day. They nevertheless communed together in Rome,
and separated in peace. About 170 a.d. the controversy broke out
again in Laodicea, the chief disputants being Melito of Sardis and
Apolinarius of Hierapolis (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note i, and
chap. 27, note i). In this controversy Melito advocated the tradi-
tional Asiatic custom of observing the fourteenth day, while Apoli-
narius opposed it. To distinguish two parties of Quartodecimans,
— a Judaizing and a more orthodox, — as must be done if Apolina-
rius is regarded, as he is by many, as a Quartodeciman, is, as Schaff
shows, entirely unwarranted. We know only of the one party, and
Apolinarius did not belong to it. The third stage of the controversy,
which took place while Victor was bishop of Rome, in the last dec-
ade of the second century, was much more bitter and important.
The leaders of the two sides were Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, and
Victor, bishop of Rome, — the latter an overbearing man, who be-
lieved that he, as Bishop of Rome, had a right to demand of all
other churches conformity to the practices of his own church. The
controversy came to an open rupture between the churches of Asia
and that of Rome, but other churches did not sympathize with the
severe measures of Victor, and the breach was gradually healed,
— just how and when we do not know; but the Roman practice
gradually prevailed over the Asiatic, and finally, at the Council of
Nicaea (325), was declared binding upon the whole Church, while
the old Asiatic practice was condemned. This decision was acqui-
esced in by the bishops of Asia, as well as by the rest of the world,
and only scattered churches continued to cling to the practice of the
earlier Asiatics, and they were branded as heretics, and called Quar-
todccimanians (from qiiarta decimii) , a name which we carry back
and apply to all who observed the fourteenth day, even those of the
second and third centuries. This brief summary will enable us bet-
ter to understand the accounts of Eusebius, who is our chief author-
ity on the subject. The paschal controversy has had an important
bearing upon the question of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel,
the Tubingen critics having drawn from this controversy one of
their strongest arguments against its genuineness. This subject
VOL. I. R
therefore necessary to end their fast on that day,
whatever day of the week it should happen to
be. But it was not the custom of the churches
in the rest of the world to end it at this time,
as they observed the practice which, from apos-
tolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time,
of terminating the fast on no other day than on
that of the resurrection of our Saviour.
Synods and assemblies of bishops were 2
held on this account,- and all, with one
consent, through mutual correspondence drew
up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of
the resurrection of the Lord should be cele-
brated on no other but the Lord's day, and
that we should observe the close of the paschal
fast on this day only. There is still extant a
writing of those who were then assembled in
Palestine, over whom Theophilus,'' bishop of
Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem,
presided. And there is also another writing
extant of those who were assembled at Rome
to consider the same question, which bears the
name of Bishop Victor ; ■* also of the bishops in
cannot be discussed here, but the reader is referred, for a brief state-
ment of the case, to .Schaffs Ch. Hist. II. 219. The Johannine con-
troversy has given rise to an extensive literature on these paschal
disputes. Among the most important works are Hilgenfeld's Dcr
Pascliastreit tier alien Kirche nach seiner Bedentiing fur die
Kirchengesch. u. s. lu.; and Schiirer's Die Paschastreitigkeitcn
des ZTXieiten Jahrhunderis, in the Zeitsdiri/tfiir hist. Tlieologie,
1870, p. 182-284, — the latter perhaps the ablest extended discus-
sion of the subject extant. The reader is also referred to the article
Easter, in Smith's Diet, of Christ. Ant.; to Hefele's Concilien-
gesclt. I. p. 86-101; and especially to the chapter on the paschal
controversies in Schaff's Ch. Hist. Vol. II. p. 209-220. This chap-
ter of Schaff's is the clearest, and, in the opinion of the writer, by
far the most satisfactory, brief statement of the whole subject which
we have.
- Although other synods are mentioned by the Libellus synodi-
cus (of the ninth century), the only ones which we have good rea-
son for accepting are those mentioned by Eusebius in this chapter
and the next; viz. one in Palestine (the Libellus synodicits gives
two: one at Jerusalem, presided over by Narcissus, and another at
Caesarea, presided over by Theophilus, but the report is too late to
be of authority); one in Pontus, under the presidency of Palmas;
one in Gaul, under Irenaeus; one in Osrhoene in Mesopotamia; and
one in Asia Minor, under Polycrates. Hefele {Concilieugesch. I.
p. loi) adds one in Rome under Victor; and although Eusebius does
not distinctly mention such a synod, we are undoubtedly to conclude
that the epistle written by Victor was a synodical epistle, and hence
Hefele is, in all probability, correct in assuming that some kind of a
synod, whether municipal or provincial, took place there at this time
(see note 4). From the words of Eusebius, at the close of the chap-
ter, we may gather that still other synods than those mentioned by
him were held on this subject. The date of all of these councils is
commonly given as 198 A.D., but there is no particular authority for
that year. Jerome's version of the Chron. assigns the composition
of the various epistles to the fourth year of Septimius Severus (196-
197) ; but it is clear that he is giving only an approximate date. We
can say only that the synods took place sometime during Victor's
episcopate. AH the councils, as we learn from this chapter, except
the one under Polycrates in Asia Minor, decided against the Quar-
todeciman practice. Athanasius, however {de Syn. c. 5), speaks of
Christians of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia as celebrating the pas-
chal feast on the fourteenth day; and Jerome {dc vir. ill. c. 35)
says that many bishops of Asia and of the Orient kept up this ob-
servance. It is possible that the practice was from the beginning
more widely spread than Eusebius supposed, or, what is more prob-
able, that the words of Athanasius and Jerome refer to individual
churches and bishops, whose observance of the fourteenth day was
not general enough to invalidate what Eusebius says of the common
consent of the whole Church, outside of Asia Minor, against the
Quartodeciman practice, and that this individual observance, not be-
ing officially recognized by any synod, did not seem to him to re-
quire mention.
» On Theophilus and Narcissus, see the preceding chapter, notes
6 and 7.
* ini(TKOTrov pUropa Sri\ov<Ta. This and the following epistles
are no longer extant, nor have we any fragments of them. They
seem to have disappeared, even before Jerome's time; at least, he
speaks only of the memory of them as remaining to his day (sec
242
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[v. 23.
Pontus over whom Palmas/ as the oldest, pre-
sided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which
Iren^us was bishop, and of those in
3 Osrhoene^ and the cities there ; and a per-
sonal letter of Bacchylus,' bishop of the
church at Corinth, and of a great many others,
who uttered the same opinion and judgment,
and cast the same vote. And that which has
been given above was their unanimous decision.**
CHAPTER XXIV.
The Disagreement in Asia.
1 But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycra-
tes, decided to hold to the old custom
handed down to them.^ He himself, in a letter
which he addressed to Victor and the church of
Rome, set forth in the following words the tradi-
tion which had come down to him : ^
2 " We observe the exact day ; neither add-
ing, nor taking away. For in Asia also great
lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on
the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come
with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all
the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the
twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis ;
and his two aged virgin daughters, and another
daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and
3 now rests at Ephesus ; and, moreover, John,
who was both a witness and a teacher, who
reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being
a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He
4 fell asleep at. Ephesus. And Polycarp ^ in
Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr ; and
Thraseas,^ bishop and martyr from Eumenia,
chap. 22, note 6). Heinichen is certainly wrong in making this
epistle an individual letter from Victor alone, for Eusebiiis expressly
says that the epistle was from " those at Rome " (xuii/ i-n'i 'PujfiT)?),
which seems to imply a council, as in the other cases. The gram-
matical construction naturally leads us to supply with the ruiv the
word used with it in the previous sentence, (ruyKeKporrj/ieVaji', —
" those who were assembled." Valesius, Hefele, and others are,
therefore, quite justified in assuming that, according to Eusebius, a
synod met at Rome, also, at this time.
<■ Palmas, bishop of Amastris, in Pontus, mentioned by Diony-
sius, in Bk. IV. chap. 23, above.
8 Osrhoene was a region of country in northwestern Mesopo-
tamia.
' This epistle of Bacchylus is distinguished from the preceding
ones by the fact that it is not a synodical or collective epistle, but
the independent production of one man, if Eusebius' report is correct
(see the preceding chapter, note 8). The epistles " of many others,"
mentioned in the next sentence, may have been of the same kind.
* Namely, against the observance of the fourteenth day.
' For a general account of the paschal controversy, sec the pre-
ceding chapter, note i. On Polycrates, see chap. 22, note 9.
' A part of this passage from Polycrates' epistle is quoted in Bk.
III. chap. 31. The extract given there begins with the second sen-
tence of the fragment (" For in Asia great lights," &c.), and ex-
tends to the report of John's burial at Ephesus. For comments upon
this portion of the fragment, see the notes given there.
' On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.
* This Thra.seas, said by Polycrates to have been bishop of
Eumenia (a city in the southern part of Plirygia), was mentioned
also by ApoUonius in his work against the Montanists (according to
Eusebius, chap. 18, § 13, of this book). He is called by Polycrates
a martyr, and by Eusebius, in reference to ApoUonius mention of
him, " one of the martyrs of that time." There is no reason to
doubt that he was a martyr, in the full sense, as Polycarp was; but
upon the more general use of the word ^aprus as, e.g., in con-
nection with John just above, see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15. We
know nothing more about this bishop Thraseas.
who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I 5
mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris^ who
fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius,^
or Melito," the Eunuch who lived altogether in.
the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting
the episcopate from heaven, when he shall
rise from the dead ? All these observed the 6
fourteenth day of the passover according to
the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but follow-
ing the rule of faith.^ And I also, Polycrates,
the least of you all, do according to the tradition
of my relatives, some of whom I have closely
followed. For seven of my relatives were bish-
ops ; and I am the eighth. And my relatives
always observed the day when the people ^
put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, 7
who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord,
and have met with the brethren throughout the
world, and have gone through every Holy Scrip-
ture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For
those greater than I have said ' We ought to
obey God rather than man.' " ^" He then 8
writes of all the bishops who were present
with him and thought as he did. His words
are as follows :
" I could mention the bishops who were pres-
ent, whom I summoned at your desire ; " whose
names, should I write them, would constitute a
great multitude. And they, beholding my little-
ness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing
that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had
always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."
Thereupon Victor, who presided over the 9
church at Rome, immediately attempted to
cut off from the common unity the parishes of
all Asia, with the churches that agreed with
them, as heterodox ; and he wrote letters and de-
clared all the brethren there wholly excommuni-
'■ On Sagaris, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 22.
" Polycrates does not call Papirius a bishop or a martyr, and we
know nothing about him. Simeon Metaphrastes, upon whose re-
ports little reliance can be placed, in his life of Polycarp (according
to Valesius), makes Papirius a successor of Polycarp, as bishop of
Smyrna.
' On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note i.
* A careful exegesis of the passages in John's Gospel, which arc
supposed by some to contradict the synoptic account, and to put
Christ's death on the fourteenth day of Nisan instead of on the fifteenth,
shows that John agrees with the Synoptists in putting the passover
meal on the fourteenth and the death of Christ on the fifteenth (see
Sohaff's Ch. Hist. Vol .1. p. 133 K., and the authorities referred to by
hini). TheAsiatic churches, in observing the fourteenth of Nisan, were
commemorating the last passover feast and the death of the paschal
Lamb. Their practice did not imply that they believed that Christ
died on the fourteenth (as can be seen from fragments of Apolina-
rius' work quoted in the Citron. Paschnlc, and referred to above;
see, also, Schafi", Vol. II. p. 214). They were in full agreement
with all four Gospels in putting his death on the fifteenth. But the
paschal controversy did not hinge on the day of the month on which
Christ died, — in regard to which there was no widespread disagree-
ment, — but on the question as to whether a particular d.^.y of the
week or of the month was to be celebrated.
" i.e. the Jews. The passover feast among the Jews took place
on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and was eaten with un-
leavened bread (Ex. xii. 6 et />asst>n). It was on the fourteenth of
Nisan, therefore, that the Jews "threw away" the leaven, and
until the evening of the twenty-first, when the seven days' feast of
unleavened bread closed, they used no leaven.
'" Acts V. 29.
" According to this, the Asiatic Council was simimoned at the
request of Victor of Rome, and in all probability this was the case
with all the councils referred to in the last chapter.
V. 24.]
EPISTLE OF IRENyEUS TO VICTOR.
243
10 catc.'- liut this did not please all the bish-
ops. And they besought him to consider
the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and
love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply
11 rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenreus,
who, sending letters in the name of the
brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, main-
tained that the mystery of the resurrection of
the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's
da)''. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he
should not cut off whole churches of God which
observed the tradition of an ancient custom,
and after many other words he proceeds as
follows : '■''
12 " For the controversy is not only concern-
ing the day, but also concerning the very
manner of the fast. For some think that they
should fast one day, others two, yet others more ;
some, moreover, count their day as consist-
13 ing of forty hours day and night.'' And this
variety in its observance has not originated
in our time ; but long before in that of our an-
cestors.'^ It is likely that they did not hold to
'- There has been considerable discussion as to whether Victor
actually excommunicated the Asiatic churches or only threatened to
do so. Socrates (//. E. V. 22) says directly that he excommuni-
cated rtiem, but many have thought that Eusebius does not say it.
For my part, I cannot understand that Eusebius' words mean any-
thing else than that he did actually cut off communion v/ith them.
The Greek reads a/<oii'wr>JTOUS Trarra? ap&y^v rovs eiceicre avaKrjpvr-
Ttav dSeAc/joi'?. This .seems to me decisive;
'3 This epistle is no longer extant, but in addition to the frag-
ments given in this chapter by Eusebius, a few other extracts from
it are found in other writers; thus, in the Pseudo-Justinian Qities-
tiones et rcsponsa ad orthodoxos occurs a quotation from Ire-
nseus' work On Easter (Tcpi toO ■na.a\a.'), which is doubtless to be
identified with this epistle to Victor (ed. Harvey, Grcpc. fragiii.
7; Eng. translation in A7ite-Niceiie Fathers, I. p. 569). Maxi-
mus of Turin, also, in his Scrvio VII. .de Eleeinos., gives a brief
quotation from "The epistle to Victor" (Harvey, Griec./ragin.
5, trans, ibid.). It is possible that some other unnamed fragments
given by Harvey are from this epistle. From Eusebius' words we
learn that Irenasus agreed with Victor as to the proper time of keep-
ing the feast, and yet he did not agree with him in his desire to ex-
communicate those who followed the other practice.
" The punctuation of this sentence is a disputed matter. Some
editors omit the semicolon after the words " yet others more," trans-
lating, " For some think that they should fast one day, others two,
yet others more, and some forty; and they count the hours of the
day and night together as their day." The sense is thus materially
changed, but the Greek seems to necessitate rather the pimctua-
tion which I have followed in my translation, and so that punc-
tuation is adopted by Valesius, Zimmermann, Burton, Schwegler,
Laemmer, Heinichen, Gloss, Cruse, and others. We .should expect,
moreover, that the forty hours' fast should be mentioned in this
connection by Irenaeus, as we learn from Tertullian that it was very
common ; whereas we have no other trace of the forty days' fast at
so early a date (cf. the next note).
•^ The fast preceding the celebration of the paschal supper, which
has grown gradually into our Lent of forty days preceding Easter,
is, we are told here by Irenaius, much older than his day. It is thus
carried back at least close to apostolic times, and there is no reason
to think that it was not observed about as soon as the celebration of
the paschal supper itself was established. Tertullian also mentions
the fast, which continued, according to him {de Jejunio, chap. 2),
during the period " in which the bridegroom was taken away," i.e.
in which Jesus was under the power of death.
We learn from this passage of Irenaeus' epistle that the duration
of the fast varied greatly. From Socrates (//. E. V. 22) and Sozo-
men (//. E. VII. 19) we learn that the variation was as great in
their time. Some fasted three, some six, some seven weeks, and so
on. Socrates {I.e.) informs us that the fast, whatever its duration,
was always called Ttatrapaicoo-Ti) {qiiadrigesima) . He does not
know why this is, but says that various reasons are given by others.
The time between Jesus' death and his resurrection was very early
computed as forty hours in length, — from noon of Friday to four
o'clock Sunday morning. This may have Iain at the basis of the
number forty, which was so persistently used to designate the fast,
for Tertullian tells us that the fast was intended to cover the period
during which Jesus was dead. It is this idea which undoubtedly
underlay the fast of forty hours which Irenaeus mentions. The fasts
Strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for
their posterity according to their own simplicity
and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none
the less in peace, and we also live in peace with
one another ; and the disagreement in regard to
the fast confirms the agreement in the faith."
He adds to this the following account, 14
which I may properly insert :
" Among these were the presbyters before So-
ter, who presided over the church which thou now
rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hygi-
nus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither
obser\-ed it"' themselves, nor did they permit
those after them to do so. And yet though not
observing it, they were none the less at peace
with those who came to them from the parishes
in which it was observed ; although this observ-
ance was more opposed to those who did
not observe it.^^ But none were ever cast 15
out on account of this form ; but the pres-
byters before thee who did not observe it, sent
the eucharist to those of other parishes who
observed it.^** And when the blessed Poly- 16
carp was at Rome ^'^ in the time of Anicetus,
of Moses, of Elijah, and of Jesus in the desert would also of course
have great influence in determining the length of this, the most im-
portant fast of the year. Already before the end of the third century
the fast had extended itself in many quarters to cover a number of
weeks, and in the time of Eusebius the forty days' fast had already
become a common thing (see his(/t' Pasch. chap. 5), and even Origen
refers to it {Hoiii. in Lev. X. 2). The present duration of the fast
— forty days exclusive of Sundays — was fixed in the seventh or
eighth century. Cf .Sinker's article on Lent in Smith's Diet, of
Christ. Ant. and Krieg's article, Eeste, in Kraus' Eneyclop. der
Christ. Altertliunier, I. p. 489.
^" i.e. the fourteenth day.
" The Greek reads: xai toi /aaAAor ivavrlov t\v to T-qpe^v toi?
fjiTi TTfipovai.. The meaning is, that the observance of the fourteenth
day by these strangers in Rome itself, among those who did not ob-
.serve that day, would be noticeable and more distasteful than the
mere report that the day was so observed in Asia could be. If Vic-
tor's predecessor, therefore, allowed such persons to observe that
day even in Rome, how much more should he allow the Asiatics to
observe it in their own land.
1* Valesius, followed by others, interprets this sentence as mean-
ing that the presbyters of Rome .sent the eucharist to other parishes
where the paschal festival was observed on the fourteenth of the
month. The council of Laodicea (Can. 14) forbade the sending of
the eucharist to other parishes, which shows that the custom must
have been widespread before the end of the fourth century, and it is
therefore quite possible that the bishops of Rome, even as early as
the time of Irenaeus, pursued the same practice. But in regard to
the statement made here by Irenaeus, it must be said that, so far as
we are able to ascertain, only the churches of Asia Minor observed
the fourteenth day at that early date, and it is difficult to imagine
that the presbyters of Rome before Victor's time had been in the
habit of sending the eucharist all the way from Rome to Asia Minor.
Moreover, this is the only passage in which we have notice, before
the fourth century, of the existence of the general practice con-
demned by the council of Laodicea. The Greek reads oi vpb aov
TTpeafivTepoi rot? cltt'o twi' TrapotKLtor Ti]pov(TLi' ^nep-jTOi' €v\apiariav.
These words taken by themselves can as well, if not better, be un-
derstood of persons (whether presbyters or others is not in any case
distinctly stated) who had come to Rome from other parishes, and
who continued to observe the fourteenth day. This transmission of
the eucharist to communicants who were kept away from the serN'ice
by illness or other adequate cause was a very old custom, being
mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Apol. I. 65. It is true that it is
difficult to understand why Irenaeus should speak in the present case
of sending the eucharist to those persons who observed the fourteenth
day, instead of merely mentioning the fact that the Roman church
communed with them. In the face of the difficulties on both sides it
must be admitted that neither of the interpretations mentioned can
be insisted upon. On the practice of sending the eucharistic bread
to persons not pre.sent at the service, or to other parishes, see the
article Eulogia, in Smith's Diet, of Christ. Ant.
^'■> en-iSij/uTJo-ai'TO? TJj 'Pujfin. Upon the significance of this
phrase, see Bk. IV. cliap. 11, note 19. On the date of Polycarp's
visit to Rome, see Hid., chap. 14, note 2. In his Ad7'. Hcer.,
where he mentions this visit (as quoted in chap. 14), Irenaeus does
R 2
244
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 24.
and they disagreed a little about certain other
things, they immediately made peace with one
another, not caring to quarrel over this matter.
For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp
not to observe what he had always observed with
John the disciple of our Lord, and the other
apostles with whom he had associated ; neither
could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it,
as he said that he ought to follow the customs
of the presbyters that had preceded him.
17 But though matters were in this shape, they
communed together, and Anicetus con-
ceded the administration of the eucharist in the
church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of re-
spect."" And they parted from each other in
peace, both those who observed, and those who
did not, maintaining the peace of the whole
church."
18 Thus Irengeus, who truly was well named,-^
became a peacemaker in this matter, ex-
horting and negotiating in this way in behalf
of the peace of the churches. And he con-
ferred by letter about this mooted question, not
only with Victor, but also with most of the other
rulers of the churches.^
CHAPTER XXV.
How All came to an Agreement respecting the
Passover.
Those in Palestine whom we have recently
mentioned. Narcissus and Theophilus,^ and with
not speak of the affair of the passover which he refers to here. The
omission, howeveV, has no significance, as he is discussing Gnosti-
cism there, and refers to Polycarp's visit to Rome only because his
attitude toward Marcion was revealed in connection with it.
2" The meaning of this passage has been disputed. The Greek
readst Kai kv tjj eKKkrjaia 7rapt;^ujp7)cre»' 6 'Ai'ikt^tos ti]1' ev^^apicTTiav
Tul IIoAu*cap7r<j> Kar' ei'TpoTriji' fivjAoi'ori. Valesius understands Ire-
na;us' meaning to be that Anicetus invited Polycarp to administer
the eucharist in Rome; and this is the common niterpretation of the
passage. Heinichen objects, however, that 7rape\-uipr)o-«i' ttjv ev^"-
piariav cannot refer to the administration of the sacrament, and
hence concludes that Irena;us means simply to say that Anicetus
permitted Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in his church, thereby
proclaiming publicly their fraternal fellowship, in spite of their dif-
ferences on the paschal question. The common interpretation, how-
ever, seems to the writer better than Heinichen's; for if the latter be
adopted, the sentence in question says no more than the one which
precedes it, — "they communed with each other" (eKon/tovricrai'
tavToU), And moreover, as Valesius remarks, Anicetus would in
that case have shown Polycarp no more honor than any other Chris-
tian pilgrim who might happen to be in Rome. Irena;us seems to
intend to say that Anicetus showed Polycarp especial honor, and
that in spite of their difference of opinion on the paschal question.
But simply to have allowed Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in
the church would certainly have been no honor, and, on the other
hand, not to invite him to assist in the administration of the sacra-
ment might have seemed a sign of disrespect, and have emphasized
their differences. The old interpretation, therefore, must be fol-
lowed, and so far as the Greek is concerned, there is no difficulty
about the construction. In the Trapex^pTjcrei' resides the idea of
" yielding," " giving place to "; and so Anicetus yielded to Polycarp
the eucharist, or gave pl.ace to him in the matter of the eucharist.
This in fact brings out the fore* of the napexuiprjo-fv better than
Heinichen's interpretation.
21 The Greek form of the name is Eipjivaiot, from dprivri, which
means "peace."
^ None of these epistles are extant; but it is possible that some
of the fragments commonly assigned to Irena;us' epistle to Victor
may belong to one or more of them (see the Did. 0/ Christ. lUot;.
III. p. 265). We do not know to what bishops or cliurches these
epistles were sent. Jenmie does not mention them.
' In chaps. 22 and 23. For particulars in regard to them, see
chap. 22, notes 6 and 7.
them Cassius,- bishop of the church of Tyre, and
Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those
who met with them,^ having stated many things
respecting the tradition concerning the passover
which had come to them in succession from the
apostles, at the close of their writing add these
words : ^
" Endeavor to send copies of our letter to
every church, that we may not furnish occasion
to those who easily deceive their souls. We
show you indeed that also in Alexandria they
keep it on the same day that we do. For letters
are carried from us to them and from them to
us, so that in the same manner and at the same
time we keep the sacred day." '^
CHAPTER XXVI.
The Elegant Works of Irenczus which have coine
dotvn to us.
Besides the works and letters of Irengeus which
we have mentioned,^ a certain book of his On
Knowledge, written against the Greeks," very
concise and remarkably forcible, is extant ; and
another, which he dedicated to a brother Marcian,
In Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching;^
and a volume containing various Dissertations,*
in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews
and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, making
- Cassius and Clarus are otherwise unknown men.
2 i.e. in the Palestinian council mentioned in chap. 23. Upon
this and the other councils held at the same period, see chap. 23,
note 2.
* This fragment is given, with annotations, by Routh, l\el. Snr.
II. p. 3 sq. English translation in the Aiite-iVicene Fathers, VI II.
P- 774-
'■' These epistles, like all the rest written at this time on the pas-
chal question, are now lost (see chap. 23, note 4).
' For a general summary of the works of Irenaeus mentioned by
Eusebius, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note g.
2 Trpbs'EAArjra? Aoyos . . . Trepi t'7ri<7T)i/ii7)s. Jerome {dci'ir. ill.
35) makes two works out of this: one Ai^aiiist the Ciiiiiles, and
another On Knowledge {et contra Gentes voluiiien bre^u-, et de
disciplina aliiid). Harvey (I. p. clxvi.) states that one of the
Syriac fragments of Irena;us' works mentions the work of ICusebius
(^11 Kno",vledg'e, and specifies that it was directed against the Valcn-
tinians. In that case it would be necessary to make two separate
works, as Jerome does, and so Harvey thinks that the te.\t of Euse-
bius must be amended by the insertion of an dAAos Te. Unfortu-
nately, Harvey did not name the Syriac fragment which contains
the statement referred to, and it is not to be found among those col-
lected in his edition (Venables, in Smith and Wace, states that he
could find no such fragment, and I have also searched in vain for it).
Evidently some blunder has been committed, and it louks as if Har-
vey's statement were unvcrifiable. Meanwhile, Jerome's testimciny
alone is certainly not enough to warrant an emendation of the text
in opposition to all the >iSS. and versions. We must therefore
conclude, with our present light, that the treatise irtpX t'n-KjTij/jiis
was directed against the Greeks, as Eusebius says. The work has
entirely perished, with the possible exception of a single brief frag-
ment (the first of the Pfaffian fr.agments; Or. l''rag. XXXV. in
Harvey's edition), which Harvey refers to it.
•* tt? eTTtfiti^ti' ToO aTTOtTToAiKoO KTjpii'y/LtaTO?, This work, too,
has perished, though possibly a few of the fragments pulilislicil by
Harvey are to be referred to it (see Harvey, I. p. clxvii.). Harvey
conjectures that the work discussed the articles of the early Rule
of faith, which is quite possible. Of tlie " brother Marcian " to whom
it was addressed, we know nothing.
* ^I'^Aiof Ti 6iaAtffu)i' iiaifjopwi'. This work (no longer extant)
was probably, as Harvey remarks, " a collection of sermons and ex-
positions of various texts and passages of Scripture." To il are
undoubtedly to be referred a great many of the fragments in which
passages of Scripture are discussed (see Harvey, I. p. cl.wii.).
V. 27-]
VARIOUS FXCLESIASTICAL WRITERS.
245
quotations from them. These are the works of
Irenseus which have come to our knowledge.
Commodus having ended his reign after thir-
teen years, Severus became emperor in less
than six months after his death, Pertinax having
reigned during the intervening time.^
CHAPTER XXVII.
The Works of Others that flourished at that
Time,
Numerous memorials of the faithful zeal of the
ancient ecclesiastical men of that time are still
preserved by many. Of these we would note
particularly the writings of Heraclitus ^ On the
Apostle, and those of Maximus on the question
so much discussed among heretics, the Origin
of Evil, and on the Creation of Matter.- Also
those of Candidus on the Hexeemeron,^ and
^ Commodus was strangled on the 31st of December, 192, and
Pertinax, who immediately succeeded him, was murdered, on
March 28, 193, by the Praetorian guard, which then sold the impe-
rial power to Didius Julianus, who, at the approach of Septimius
Severus, who had been proclaimed emperor by the Pannonian le-
gions, was declared a public enemy by the Senate, and beheaded
after a reign of only sixty-six days.
1 This Heraclitus is mentioned only by Eusebius and by Jerome
{de z'ir. ill. chap. 46) , who, in his description of him and in the five
following chapters (on Maximus, Candidus, Apion, Sextus, and
Arabianus), does nothing more than repeat the words of Eusebius
in this chapter. The work which Eusebius calls rd "IIpaicAeiTou eis
Tov aTTocTToAoi' is Called by Jerome zVz apostoluni Covimcjitarios.
The word an-ocTToAos was quite commonly used among the Fathers
to denote the epistles of Paul (see Suicer's 7"/j(?jai<r7«), and hence
Eusebius seems here to refer to commentaries (the plural article ra.
is used) on the Pauline epistles. These commentaries are no longer
extant, and we know nothing of their nature.
^ The Greek reads xal to. Mafc/aou jrepl toO 7roAii9pi/A^TOU n-apa
TOis aipcCTioiTais ^7)TT)/itaT0?, ToO nodeu 17 Ka/ci'a, Kal wepl ToO yn'ri-
Triv vna.pxei-i' Trjf iiArji'. The plural to. {sc. v-noixv-qixara) might lead
us to suppose Eusebius refers here to separate works, were it not
for the fact that in his Pnep. Evang. VII. 22 is found a long extract
from a work of Maximus 0)i ISIatter (jrepi- t^s vAt;;) in which
the subject of the origin of evil is discussed in connection with the
origin and nature of matter. In that age one could hardly discuss
the origin of evil without at the same time discussing matter, to
which the origin of evil was referred by the great majority of the
ancients. We are to suppose, then, that the work of Maximus bore
the double title given by Eusebius in this chapter. Jerome in his
de vir. ill. chap. 47, says: Maximits . . . /aiiiosain guastionem
insigni vohitnine ventilavit, unde inalutn, et quod materia a
Deo facta sit. As remarked above, a long extract, which must have
been taken from this work, is given by Eusebius in his Pmp. Evang.
It appears from this extract that the work was written in the form
of a dialogue between three speakers, — two inquirers, and one or-
thodox Christian. The same fragment of Maximus' work is found
also in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Philocalia of Origen, and is
said by the editors, Gregory and Basil, to have been copied by them
from Eusebius' work. The Dialogue on Free Will, ascribed to
Methodius (of the early part of the fourth century), made large use
of this work of Maximus; and the same is to be said of the Pseudo-
Origenistic Dialogue against the Marcionites, though according to
Routh i^Rel. Sac. II. p. 79) the latter drew his quotations from Me-
thodius and not directly from Maximus. The work of Methodius
undoubtedly contains much more of Maximus' work than is given
here by Eusebius; but it is difficult to ascertain what is his own and
what belongs to Maximus, and Routh, in publishing the fragments
of Maximus' work {ibid. p. 87-107), gives only the extract quoted
by Eusebius. In \i\%PrcEp. Evang. Eusebius speaks of Maximus as
TJjs \pi.aTO\i SiarpiS))? ovk acrr)M.os avrip, but we know no more about
him than has been already indicated. Gallandius suggests that he
may be identical with Maximus, the twenty-sixth bishop of Jeru-
salem (see above, chap. 12), who, it is quite probable, lived
about this time (cf. Eusebius' C/tron., year of Abr. 2202). But
Eusebius, neither in this chapter nor in his Pripp. Evang., calls
'Maximus a bishop, and it seems proper to conclude that he at least
did not know that he was a bishop; and hence Gallandius' conjec-
ture, which rests only upon agreement in a very common name,
must be pronounced quite baseless.
■5 ei? Trjf e^arifiepoi' (_sc. Koa-tionouav or ST)ixiovpyCav) . The ad-
jective i^aijuepos was commonly used in this way, with the feminine
of Apion* on the same subject; likewise of
Sextus^ on the Resurrection, and another trea-
tise of Arabianus," and writings of a multitude
of others, in regard to whom, because we have
no data, it is impossible to state in our work
when they lived, or to give any account of their
history.'' And works of many others have come
article, implying a noun understood, and referring to the six days'
work of creation (see Suicer's Thesaurus). The subject was cjuite
a favorite one with the "Fathers. Hippolytus, Basil, Gregory of
Nyssa, Ambrose, and others wrote upon it, as did also the Apion
mentioned in the next sentence. The work of Candidus is no longer
extant, nor do we know anything more about it and its author than
Eusebius tells us here. The plural to. occurs again, and Jerome
supplies tractatus. Whether the word fitly describes the work, or
works, or whether they were rather of the nature of homilies, like
Basil's, we do not know. Sophronius, in translating Jerome, puts
6/xiAia5 for tractatus, but this of course is of no authority.
^ Apion's work is mentioned also by Jerome {de vir. ill. chap. 4) ,
but nothing is added to the statement of Eusebius. We know noth-
ing more about him or his work.
'' Sextus also is mentioned by Jerome, in his de vir. ill. chap.
50, but we know nothing about him or his work, except what Euse-
bius tells us here.
s Nothing more is known of this Arabianus, and Eusebius does
not even tell us the name of his work. His silence is difficult to
exjjlain. We can hardly imagine that the title was intentionally
omitted; for had there been a reason for such a course, there must
have been as much reason for omitting the writer's name also. It
does not seem probable that he had never known the title of the
book, for he was not in the habit of mentioning works which he had
not seen, except with the formula A670S ex^'> or something of the
kind, to indicate that he makes his statement only on the authority
of others. It is possible that he had seen this, with the other works
mentioned (perhaps all bound in one volume), at sometime in the
past, but that the title of Arabianus' work had escaped him, and
hence he simply mentioned the work along with the others, without
considering the title a matter of great importance. He speaks of
but a single work, — aAAr; ns uTroSecris, — but Jerome (chap. 51)
mentions guadani opuscnla ad christianum dogma pertincntia.
His description is not specific enough to lead us to think that he had
personal knowledge of Arabianus' writings. It must rather be con-
cluded that he allowed himself some license, and that, not satisfied
to speak of a writer without naming his works, and, at the same
time, knowing nothing definite about them, he simply calls them, in
the most general terms, ad christianum dogma pertinentia; for
if they were Christian works, he was pretty safe in concluding that
they had to do, in some way at least, with Christian doctrine. The
substitution of the plural for the singular {qucedam opuscula for
T15 UTToOeo-is) can hardly have been an accident. It is, perhaps,
safe to say, knowing Jerome's methods, that he permitted himself
to make the change in order to conceal his own ignorance of the
writings of Arabianus; for to mention a single book, and say no
more about it than that it had to do with Christian doctrine, would
be a betrayal of entire ignorance in regard to it; but to sum up a
number of writings under the general head ad christianum dogma
pertinentia, instead of giving all the titles in detail, would be,
of course, quite consistent with an exact acquaintance with all of
them. If our supposition be correct, we have simply another in-
stance of Jerome's common sin, and an instance which, in this case,
reveals a sharp contrast between his character and that of Eusebius,
who never hesitated to confess his ignorance.
' Eusebius does not imply, in this sentence, that he is not ac-
quainted with these works to which he refers. As the words are
commonly translated, we might imagine that he was not familiar
with them, for all the translators make him speak of not being able
to draw any extracts from them for his own history. Thus Valesius:
71CC narratioireni iillam lihris nostris inte.rerc possumus; Stroth:
" noch etwas darauserzahlen kann"; Closs: " noch etwas daraus
anfiihren konnen "; Cruse: " we can neither insert the time nor any
extracts in our History." The Greek of the whole sentence reads,
Ziv 5id TO [t.i\hf.p.la.v txti-v a.^opp.i\v ovx olov re oi;T« Tous XP°''°^''
TrapaSovi'ai ypa<f>rj, oiiO' tcrropia? nvrifj.riv v7ro(TJ)H.^raO'9ai, which
seems to mean simply that their works contain no information which
enables him to give the dates of the authors, or to recount anything
about their lives; that is, they contain no personal allusions. This
is quite different from saying that he was not acquainted with the
works; in fact, had he not been quite familiar with them, he could
not have made such a broad statement. He seems to have searched
them for personal notices, and to have failed in the search. Whether
these words of Eusebius apply to all the works already mentioned,
or only to the p.vpiiov dAAwr just referred to, cannot be certainly de-
termined. The latter seems most natural; but even if the reference
be only to those last mentioned, there is every reason to think that
the words are just as true of the writings of Heraclitus, Maximus,
and the others, for he tells us nothing about their lives, nor the time
in which they lived, but introduces them in the most general terms,
as " ancient ecclesiastical men." There seems, therefore, no good rea-
son for connecting these writers with the reign of Commodus, rather
than with any other reign of the late second or of the thud century.
246
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 27.
down to us whose names we are unable to give,
orthodox and ecclesiastical, as their interpreta-
tions of the Divine Scriptures show, but unknown
to us, because their names are not stated in their
writmgs.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Those who first advanced the Heresy of Arte-
mon; their Maimer of Life, and how they
dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures.
1 In a laborious work by one of these
writers against the heresy of Artemon,'
It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say that " these men lived
at this time"; he simply mentions them in this connection because it is
a convenient place, and perhaps because there v/ere indications which
led him to think they could not have lived early in the second or
late in the third century. It is quite possible, as suggested in the pre-
vious note, that the works of the writers whose names are mentioned
in this chapter were collected in a single volume, and that thus
Eusebius was led to class them all together, although the subjects of
their works were by no means the same, and their dates may have
been widely different.
* Eusebius mentioned first those works whose authors' names
were known to him, but now adds that he is acquainted with many
other writings which bear the name of no author. He claims, how-
ever, that the works testify to their authors' orthodo.xy, and he seems
to imply, by this statement, that he has convinced himself of their
orthodoxy by a personal examination of them.
1 This anonymous work against the heresy of Artemon is no
longer extant, and the only fragments of it which we have are tliose
preserved by Eusebius in this chapter. Theodoret {Hier. Fah.
II. 5) mentions the work, and says that it was directed against tlie
heresies of Theodotus and Artemon, and that it bore the name Little
Labyrinth. It is plain, from the fragments which Eusebius gives,
that it was written in Rome some little time before the middle
of the third century, probably not far from 230 or 240 a.d. The
work is commonly ascribed to Hippolytus, in favor of which may be
urged both the time and tlie place of its composition as well as some
internal resemblance between it and the Philosophitinena. On the
other hand, Photius {Cod. 48) ascribes to Cains of Rome a work
against Artemon, which may well be identical with the anonymous
work quoted in the present chapter. It is therefore contended by
some (e.g. by Salmon) that Cains was the author of the work. It
must be noted, however, that in the same connection Photius as-
cribes another work to Caius which we know to have been written
by Hippolytus, and hence his testimony is rather in favor of Hip-
polytus than Caius as the author of the work. On the other hand,
several objections have been urged by Salmon against the Hippoly-
tine authorship, which, while not decisive, yet make it extremely
doubtful. In view of these facts, we must conclude that it is possi-
ble, but very improbable, that Hippolytus wrote the work; that it
is not impossible, though we are quite without evidence for the sup-
position, that Caius wrote it; that it is more likely that a work which
even to Eusebius was anonymous, was written by an unknown man,
who must remain unknown to us also. The extant fragments of
the work are given, with notes, by Routh in his Ri-t. Sac, and an
English translation in the Aiiie-Nicciic Fathers, Vol. V. p. 601 sq.,
among the works of Caius. Although the work is said by Eusebius
to have been directed against the heresy of Artemon, he has pre-
served only extracts relating to the Theodoti and their heresy.
They are described also by Hippolytus, both in his lost Syntagma
(as we can learn from Pseudo-Tertnllian, Epiphanins, and Philas-
ter) and in his Philosophiimena (VII. 23-24, and X. 19). Other
ancient writers that mention him know only wliat our anonymous
author or Hippolytus reports. It seems that the older Theodotus,
a native of Hyzantium, came to Rome in the time of Eleutherus or
Victor, and taught a species of adoptionism, which reminds us
somewhat of the Asia Minor Alogi, in whose circle he may have
been trained. Hippolytus informs us that he was orthodox in his
theology and cosmology, but that he was heretical in his Chris-
tology. He did not deny Christ's birth from a virgin (as the Ebio-
nites had done), but he did deny his divinity, teaching that he was
a mere man (i/ztAos ai'0poj7ro?), upon whom the Holy Spirit de-
scended at the time of his baptism, in consequence of which he
became the Christ, received power to fulfill his special mission, and
by his righteousness was raised above all other men. The descent
of the Holy Spirit, however, although raising him to a very exalted
position, did not make hirn divine; some of Theodotus' followers
denying that he ever acquired divinity, others believing that he ac-
quired it by his resurrection. Theodotus was excommunicated by
Victor on account of his heretical Christology, but gained a num-
ber of followers, and after his exconinuinication founded a schismat-
ical sect, which had a bishop Natalius, to whom a regular salary
w.-is paid (see below, § 10), and which continued under the leader-
ship of another Theodotus, a banker, and a certain Asclcpiodotus,
which Paul of Samosata- attempted to revive
again in our day, there is an account appropriate
to the history which we are now examining.
For he criticises, as a late innovation, the 2
above-mentioned heresy which teaches that
the Saviour was a mere man, because they were
attempting to magnify it as ancient.^ Having
given in his work many other arguments in refu-
tation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds
the following words :
" For they say that all the early teachers 3
and the apostles received and taught what
they now declare, and that the truth of the Gos-
pel was preserved until the times of Victor, who
was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter,*
but that from his successor, Zephyrinus,^
the truth had been corrupted. And what 4
they say might be plausible, if first of all
both of them disciples of the first Theodotus, during the episcopate
of Zephyrinus, but seems soon to have disappeared, and to have
exerted comparatively little influence during its brief existence.
Theodotus, the banker, appears to have agreed substantially with the
older Theodotus, but to have indulged himself in speculations con-
cerning Melchizedek, pronouncing him to be a heavenly power still
higher than Clirist. Epiphanius makes the second Theodotus the
founder of a second party, and gives his school the name of Mel-
chizedekians, which appears in later works on heresy, but there is
no reason to suppose that there were two separate parties.
A few years later another attempt was made in Rome to revive
the old adoptionist Christology (essentially the same as that rep-
resented by Hermas early in the second century), by a certain
Artemon, .against whom the Little Labyrinth, quoted in this chapter,
was directed. It is common to connect Artemon and his followers
with the Theodotians; but, as Harnack remarks, it is plain that
they did not look upon themselves as the followers of the Theodoti
(see below, note 15). We cannot tell, however, in what respect
tlieir Christology differed from that of the latter, for we know very
little about them. They at any rate agreed with the Theodotians in
denying the divinity of Christ. From the epistle of the synod of
Antioch (quoted below, in Bk. VII. chap. 30) we learn that Artemon
was still living in the year 268, or thereabouts. He seems, however,
to have accomplished little in Rome, and to have dropped into com-
parative obscurity some time before this; at least, we hear nothing
of him during all these years In the controversy with Paul of
.Samosata he was called the father of the latter (see below, Bk. VII.
chap. 30, § ), and thus acquired considerable celebrity in the East,
where his name became permanently connected with that of Paul
as one of the leading heretics. Whether Paul really learned his
Christology from Artemon we do not know, but that it closely re-
sembled that of the latter there can be no doubt. He really repro-
duced the old adoptjonist Christology of Hermas (as both the
Theodotians and Artemon had done), but modified it under the
influence partly of Origen's teachings, partly of the Aristotelian
method. For further particulars in regard to the Theodoti and
Artemon, see the remaining notes on this chapter. For an admirable
discussion of the whole subject, see Harnack's Dogineiigeschiclite,
!• P- 573 sq. On the Little Labyrinth, see especially the Diet, of
Christian Biog. HI. p. 98.
2 On Paul of Samosata, see below, Bk. VII. chap. 27, note 4.
3 The Artemonites were certainly correct in maintaining that
the adoptionism which they held was, at least in its essential prin-
ciples, an ancient thing, and their opponents were wrong in try-
ing to deny it. It is the Christology which Hermas represents,
and early in the second century it was undoubtedly a widespread
|K)pulai belief. No one tliought of ipiestioning the orthodoxy of
Hermas. The Christology of the Theodotians and of Artemon was
an innovation, however, in so far as it attempted to formulate in
scientific terms and to treat philosophically what had hitherto been
only a popular belief. So soon as the logical conclusions were
drawn, and its consequences to the divinity of the Son were per-
ceived, it began to be felt as heresy, but not until then.
■• On Victor, see above, chap. 22, note i. Victor is the thirteenth
bishop if Cletus and Anencletus be reckoned as one, otherwise the
fourteenth. Tliis is used by Salmon as an argument against the
Hippolytine authorship of the Little Labyrinth, for Hipijolytus
reckoned Cletus and Anencletus as two bishops, and therefore made
Victor the fourteenth (.see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3).
'' The dates of Zephyrinus' episcopate are to be gained by reck- *
oning backward from that of Callistus, which is shown in Bk. VI.
chap. 21, note 3, to have begun in the year 217. A comparison of
the various sources shows tliat Zephyrinns was bishop eighteen or
nineteen years, which brings us b.ack to the year 108 or igg as the date
of his accession. Eusebius says " about the ninth year of the reign
V. 28.]
THEODOTUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS.
247
the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them.
And there are writings of certain brethren
older than the times of Victor, which they wrote
in behalf of the truth against the heathen, and
against the heresies which existed in their day.
I refer to Justin'' and INIiltiades^ and Tatian^ and
Clement'-' and many others, in all of whose
5 works Christ is spoken of as God.'" For
who does not know the works of Irenoeus "
and of Melito ^- and of others which teach that
Christ is God and man?'^' And how many
psalms and hymns,'' written by the faithful
brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ
the Word of God, speaking of him as
6 Divine. How then since the opinion held
by the Church has been preached for so
many years, can its preaching have been delayed
as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And
of Severus," which according to the correct reckoning would be the
year 201, but according to his erroneous reckoning of the dates of the
emperors' reigns (see the note already referred to) gives the year
200, so that the agreement is reasonably close (see Lipsius' Citron,
der riim. Bischo/e, p. 172 sq., and see above, Bk. V. chap. 22,
note i). In Bk. IX. of his great work Hippolytus gives quite an
account of Zephyrinus and his successor, Callistus. The former is
described as ignorant and illiterate, a taker of bribes, an uninformed
and shamefully corrupt man, &c. How much of this is true and
how much is due to prejudice, we cannot tell. But it seems at least
to be a fact that Zephyrinus was completely under the influence of
Callistus, as Hippolytus states. We learn from the latter that
Zephyrinus at least countenanced the heresy of Patripassianism (at
the opposite e.xtreme from that of the Theodotians and Artemon) , if
he did not directly teach it.
^ On Justin Martyr, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 20.
^ On Miltiades, see above, chap. 17, note i.
8 On Tatian, see Bk. IH. chap. 29. The fact that Tatian is here
spoken of with respect is urged by .Salmon as an argument against
the Hippolytine authorship of this work, for Hippolytus devotes
two chapters of his Pliilosophnrnena (VIII. 9, X. 14) to the heresy
of Tatian.
" On Clement of Alexandria, see above, chap. 11, note i.
w SeoAoyetTai o xpicTo?. Our author is quite correct in making
this statement. The apologists are agreed in their acceptance of the
Logos Christology of which they are the earliest patristic exponents,
and in the time of Clement of Alexandria it had become, as yet in an
undeveloped form, the commonly accepted doctrine of the orthodox
Church.
11 On Irenasus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note g.
^' On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note i.
13 Irena;us' utterances on this subject were epoch-making in the
history of doctrine. No one before him had emphasized so energeti-
callj' and brought out so clearly the God-manhood of Christ. His
great significance in Christology is the emphasis which he laid upon
the unity of God and man in Christ, — a unity in which the integrity
both of the divine and of the human was preserved. Our author is
also doubtless correct in saying that Melito called Christ God and
man. If the two fragments from the Discourse on the Soul and
Body, and from the Discourse on the Cross (printed from the
Syriac by Curelon, in his Spic. Syr. p. 52 sq.), be genuine, as is
quite probable (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note i), we have clear
indications that Melito taught both the humanity and the deity of
Christ (" when He was become incarnate through the womb of the
Virgin, and was born man." " Inasmuch as He was man. He needed
food; still, inasmuch as He was God, He ceased not to feed the uni-
verse").
1* This passage is sometimes interpreted as indicating that
hymns written by the Christians themselves were sung in the
church of Rome at this time. But this is by no means implied.
So far as we are able to gather from our sources, nothing, except
the Psalms and New Testament hymns (such as the " Gloria in
Excelsis," the "Magnificat," the "Nunc Dimittis," &c.), was
as a rule, sung in public worship before the fourth century (the
practice which had sprung up in the church of Antioch seems to
have been exceptional; see Kraus, p. 673). Before the end of that
century, however, the practice of singing other hymns in the service
of the Church had become common, both in the East and West. On
the other hand, the private use of hymns among the Christians be-
gan very early. We need refer here only to Pliny's epistle to Tra-
jan (translated above, in Bk. III. chap. 33, note i) ; Clement of
Alexandria, Strom. VII. 7; Tertullian, ad Uxor. II. 8; Origen,
Contra Cels. VIII. 67; the epistle of Dionysius quoted below, in Bk.
VII. chap. 24, &c. Compare the article Hyjnnen in Kraus' Real-
Encyclop'ddie der Christl. Altcrthumer, and the article Hymns
in Smith and Cheetham's Diet. 0/ Christ. Antiquities.
how is it that they are not ashamed to speak
thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut
off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler,'*
the leader and father of this God-denying apos-
tasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere
man ? For if Victor agreed with their opinions,
as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out
Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy? "
So much in regard to Victor. His bish- 7
opric lasted ten years, and Zephyrinus was
appointed his successor about the ninth year of
the reign of Severus."' The author of the above-
mentioned book, concerning the founder of this
heresy, narrates another event which occurred in
the time of Zephyrinus, using these words :
" I will remind many of the brethren of 8
a fact which took place in our time, which,
had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have
proved a warning to them. There was a certain
confessor, Natalius,^'^ not long ago, but in
our own day. This man was deceived at 9
one time by Asclepiodotus '^ and another
Theodotus,'^ a money-changer. Both of them
were disciples of Theodotus, the col)bler, who,
as I have said, was the first person excommuni-
cated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account
of this sentiment, or rather senselessness.^
Natalius was persuaded by them to allow
himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy
with a salary, to be paid by them, of one
hundred and fifty denarii a month.^^ When
he had thus connected himself with them,
he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through
visions. For the compassionate God and our
Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness
of his own sufferings, being cast out of the
Church, should perish. But as he paid little 12
regard to the visions, because he was en-
10
11
15 Toi' iTKVTia: "cobbler," or " worker in leather." On Theodo-
tus, see above, note i. As Harnack remarks, the Artcmonites must
have known that Victor had excommunicated Theodotus, and there-
fore, if they regarded themselves as his followers, it would have
been impossible to claim that all the Roman bishops, including
Victor, held their opinions. When to this is added the apparent
effort of our author to identify the Artemonites with the Theodo-
tians, it becomes clear that they must themselves have denied their
connection with them, though m what points they differed with them,
we do not know (see above, note i ; and cf. Harnack's Dogmettgesch.
I. p. 583). "" See above, note 5.
" Of Natalius, we know only what is told us in this passage.
The suggestion of Valesius that he might be identified with Csecilius
Natalis, the heathen who is represented as converted by Octavius,
in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, is quite baseless.
18 'Ao-kAtjitioSotou, according to all the MSB. except one, which
reads 'AcrKArjn-ta^ou, and with which Nicephorus and Theodoret
agree. He is undoubtedly the same man that is referred to in § 17,
below, where all the MSS. unite in reading ' \<iK\r\Txi.6.tov. Of this
man we know only what is told us in this chapter. Theodoret
{Hter. Fab. II. 5) mentions him, but adds nothing new^ while Hip-
polytus in his Philosophuinena, and apparently in his lost Syn-
tagma, passes him by without notice.
1" On this second Theodotus, a money-changer or b.anker {jpa--
7re^iTr;5), who is distinguished from the first Theodotus by both our
sources (Hippolytus and the Little Labyrinth quoted here), see
above, note i. ....
=0 The Greek contains a play of words at this point: eiri To-vr'a
T37 (^porTJo-et, fxaAAoi' 6e a.ffipoa'Vi'JJ.
=1 This is the earliest instance we have of a salaried clergyn;.an.
The practice of paying salaries was followed also by the Montanists,
and brought great reproach upon them (see above, chap. 18, note 8).
A Roman denarius was equal to about seventeen cents, so that
Natalius' monthly salary was a little over twenty-five dollar*.
248
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[V. 28.
snared by the first position among them and by
that shameful covetousness which destroys a
great many, he was scourged by holy angels,
and punished severely through the entire night."
Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put
on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes,
and with great haste and tears he fell down
before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the
feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity ;
and he moved with his tears the compassionate
Church of the merciful Christ. And though he
used much supplication, and showed the welts
of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely
was he taken back into communion."
13 We will add from the same writer some
other extracts concerning them, which run
as follows : ^
"They have treated the Divine Scriptures
recklessly and without fear. They have set
aside the rule of ancient faith ; and Christ they
have not known. They do not endeavor to
learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but
strive laboriously after any form of syllogism
which may be devised to sustain their impiety.
And if any one brings before them a passage of
Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive
or disjunctive form of syllogism can be
14 made from it. And as being of the earth
and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant
of him who cometh from above, they forsake
the holy writings of God to devote themselves
to geometry.^** Euclid is laboriously measured ^
by some of them ; and Aristotle and Theophras-
tus are admired ; and Galen, perhaps, by
15 some is even worshiped. But that those
'2 It is not necessary to doubt the truth of this report, if we sub-
stitute " muscular Christians " for " holy angels." As Stroth dryly
remarks: " Eben kein loblich Geschaft fiir die heiligen Engel;
es werden aber ohne zweifel Engel mit guten starken Knochen und
Nerven gewesen sein."
23 The information which is given us here in regard to the
methods of the Theodotians is very interesting. What is said in
regard to their philosophical principles makes it evident that they
used the grammatical and critical mode of exegesis as opposed to
the prevalent allegorical mode. Nothing could seem more irrever-
ent and irreligious to the Church of that age than such a method of
interpretation, the method which we now recognize as the only true
one. They were, moreover, textual critics. They may have been
rash in their methods, but it is not necessary to suppose them dis-
honest in their purposes. They seem to have looked upon the
Scriptures as inspired as truly as their opponents did, but they be-
lieved that radical criticism was needed if the true reading of the
originals was to be reached, while their opponents were shocked at
anything of the kind. That textual criticism was necessary, even
at that early day, is clear enough from the words of Irena;us ((juoted
in chap. 20, above), and from the words of Dionysius (quoted ni ]jk.
IV. chap. 23), as well as from many other sources. Finally, these
men seem to have offended their opponents by the use of dialectical
methods in their treatment of theology. This is very significant at
that early date. It is indeed the earliest instance known to us of
that method which seemed entirely irreligious to the author of the
Little Labyrinth, but which less than a century later prevailed in
the Antiochian .school, and for a large part of the Middle Ages ruled
the whole Church.
^ The author makes a play here upon the word earth, which can-
not be reproduced in a translation. ■yeu/oifTpiai' (literally, " earth-
measure ") en-iTTjSeuouo'ii', io<ia.v tie t^s yijs oi'Tc; xai eK t^s y^s
AaAoOi'Tet.
** '£vKA<i£>)t . . . yeuficTperToi: WictaXXy , Euclid is gcometrised.
who use the arts of unbeHevers for their he-
retical opinions and adulterate the simple faith
of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the
godless, are far from the faith, what need is there
to say? Therefore they have laid their hands
boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleg-
ing that they have corrected them. That 16
I am not speaking falsely of them in this
matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any
one will collect their respective copies, and
compare them one with another, he will
find that they differ greatly. Those of As- 17
clepiades,^® for example, do not agree with
those of Theodotus. And many of these can
be obtained, because their disciples have as-
siduously written the corrections, as they call
them, that is the corruptions,^ of each of them.
Again, those of Hermophilus^ do not agree
with these, and those of Apollonides ^-^ are
not consistent with themselves. For you can
compare those prepared by them at an earlier
date with those which they corrupted later,
and you will find them widely different. But 18
how daring this offense is, it is not likely
that they themselves are ignorant. For either
they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures
were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are
unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser
than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else
are they than demoniacs? For they cannot
deny the commission of the crime, since the
copies have been written by their own hands.
For they did not receive such Scriptures from
their instructors, nor can they produce any
copies from which they were transcribed.
But some of them have not thought it 19
worth while to corrupt them, but simply
deny the law and the prophets,^ and thus
through their lawless and impious teaching
under pretense of grace, have sunk to the
lowest depths of perdition."
Let this suffice for these things.
-'■• All the MSS. read 'A(r>tA)77ria5ou, which is adopted by most
of the editors. Rufinus and Nicephorus, however, followed by a
few editors, among them Heinichen, read "A<rKAT)mo6oToii (see above,
note i8).
27 KaTojp^cofxe'i'a, TOVTeVrti' i^(/)ai't<rjaeVa.
-* Of this Hennoi)hilus we know nothing more.
-'■> '\iToA\iai't&ov, which is the reading of one ancient MS., of Ru-
finus, Theodorct, and Nicephorus, and which is adopted by Stroth,
Burton, Heinichen, and Closs. The majority of the MbS. read
'.Vn-oAAioi'ioi/, while a few read '.\n^oAAa>i'ia6ou.
^" These persons can hardly have rejected the Law and the
Prophets utterly, — at least, no hint is given us that they maintained
a fundamental difference between the God of the Old and the God
of the New Testament, as Marcion did, — nor would such wholesale
rejection be natural for critics such .is they were. It is more likely
that they simply, as m,any of the Gnostics did, emphasized the merely
relative authority of the Old Testament, and that they applied his-
torical criticism to it, distinguishing between its various parts in the
matter of authority. Such action is just what we should expect
from members of a critical school like that of Theodotus, and such
criticism in its cxtrcmest form would naturally seem to an orthodox
Catholic the same as throwing over the whole book. Cf. Har-
nack, Dogmengeschichtc , p. 579 and p. 488 sqq.
BOOK VI.
CHAPTER I.
Tlie Persecution under Severus.
When Severus began to persecute the
churches/ glorious testimonies were given
everywhere by the athletes of religion. This
was especially the case in Alexandria, to which
city, as to a most prominent theater, athletes
of God were brought from Egypt and all The-
bais according to their merit, and won crowns
from God through their great patience under
many tortures and every mode of death.
Among these was Leonides, who was called the
fother of Origen,- and who was beheaded while
1 During the early years of the reign of Septiiniiis Severus the
Christians enjoyed comparative peace, and Severus himself showed
them considerable favor. Early in the third century a change set
in, and in 202 the emperor issued an edict forbidding conversions to
Christianity and to Judaism (Spartianus, in Scvero, c. 16; cf. Tille-
mont. Hist, des Emp. III. p. 58). The cause of this radical change
of conduct wc do not know, but it is possible that the excesses of the
■ Montanists produced a reaction in the emperor's mind against the
Christians, or that the rapidity with which Christianity was spread-
ing caused him to fear that the old Roman institutions would be
overturned, and hence produced a reaction against it. Why the
Jews, too, should have been attacked, it is hard to say, — possibly
because of a new attempt on their part to throw off the Roman yoke
(see Spartianus, in Severe, c. 16) ; or perhaps there underlay the
whole movement a reaction in the emperor's mind toward the old
Roman paganism (he was always superstitious), and Judaism and
Christianity being looked upon as alike opposed to it, were alike to
be held in check. The edict was aimed, not against those already
Christians, but only against new converts, the idea being to prevent
the further spread of Christianity. But the change in the emperor's
attitude, thus published abroad, at once intensified all the elements
which were hostile to Christianity; and the popular disfavor, which
continued widespread and was continually venting itself in local per-
secutions, now allowed itself freer rein, and the result was that
severe persecutions bro'ke out, which were confined, however, almost
wholly to Egypt and North Africa. Our principal authorities for
these persecutions (which went on intermittently during the rest of
Severus' reign) are the first twelve chapters of this book of Eusebius'
History, and a number of Tertullian's works, especially his Dc
corona milites. Ad Scap., and De ftiga in persecutione.
2 We know very little about Origen's father. The fame of the
son overshadowed that of the father, even though the latter was a
martyr. The phrase used in this passage to describe him has caused
some trouble. AewriSr;? 6 Aeyonf i'05 'U.piyii'ov; Trarr/p. Taken in
its usual sense, the expression means "said to be the father of Ori-
gen," or the " so-called father of Origen," both of which appear
strange, for there can have been no doubt as to his identity. It
seems better, with Westcott, to imderstand that Eusebius means that
Origen's fame had so eclipsed his father's that the latter was distin-
guished as " Leonides, the father of Origen," and hence says here,
" Leonides, who was known as the father of Origen." The name
Leonides is Greek, and that he was of Greek nationality is further
confirmed bjr the words of Porphyry (quoted in chap. 19, below),
who calls Origen " a Greek, and educated in Greek literature." Por-
phyry may simply have concluded from his knowledge of Greek let-
ters that he was a Greek by birth, and hence his statement taken alone
has little weight; but taken in conjunction with Leonides' name, it
makes it probable that the latter was at least of Greek descent;
whether a native of Greece or not we do not know. A late tradition
makes him a bishop, but there is no foundation for such a report.
From the next chapter we learn that Leonides' martyrdom took
place in the tenth year of Severus (201-202 a.d.), which is stated
also by the ChroK,
his son was still young. How remarkable the
predilection of this son was for the Divine Word,
in consequence of his father's instruction, it will
not be amiss to state briefly, as his fame has
been very greatly celebrated by many.
CHAPTER n.
Tlie Training of Origen from Childhood}-
Many things might be said in attempt- 1
ing to describe the life of the man while in
school ; but this subject alone would require a
separate treatise. Nevertheless, for the present,
abridging most things, we shall state a few facts
concerning him as briefly as possible, gathering
them from certain letters, and from the state-
ment of persons still living who were ac-
quainted with him. What they report of 2
Origen seems to me worthy of mention,
even, so to speak, from his swathing-bands.
It was the tenth year of the reign of Severus,
* This sixth book of Eusebius' History is our chief source for a
knowledge of Origen's life. His own writings give us little informa-
tion of a personal nature; but Eusebius was in a position to learn a
great deal about him. He had the advantage of personal converse
with surviving friends of Origen, as he tells us in this connection;
he had also a large collection of Origen's epistles (he had himself
made a collection of more than one hundred of them, as he tells us
in chap. 36) ; and he had access besides to official documents, and to
works of Origen's contemporaries which contained references to him
(see chap. 33). As a result, he was in a position to write a full and
accurate account of his life, and in fact, in connection with Pamphi-
lus, he did write a Defense 0/ Origeti in six books, which contained
both an exposition of his theology with a refutation of charges
brought against him, and a full account of his life. Of this work
only the first book is extant, and that in the translation of Rufinus.
It deals solely with theological matters. It is greatly to be regretted
that the remaining books are lost, for they must Ijave contained
much of the greatest interest in connection with Origen's life, espe-
cially that period of it about which we are most poorly informed, his
residence in Csesarea after his retirement from Alexandria (see chap.
23) . In the present book Eusebius gives numerous details of Origen|s
life, frequently referring to the Defense for fuller particulars. His
account is very desultory, being interspersed with numerous notices
of other men and events, introduced apparently without any method,
though undoubtedly the design was to preserve in general the chro-
nological order. There is no part of Eusebius' work which reveals
more clearly the viciousness of the purely chronological method,
breaking up as it does the account of a single person or movement
into numerous detached pieces, and thus utterly destroying all his-
torical continuity. It may be well, therefore, to sum up in brief out-
line the chief events of Origen's life, most of which are scattered
through the following pages. This summary will be found below,
on p. 391 sq. In addition to the notices contained in this book, we
have a few additional details from the Defense, which have been
preserved by Jerome, Rufinus, and Photius, none of whom seems to
have had much, if any, independent knowledge of Origen's life.
Epiphanius {Hier. LXIII. and LXIV.) relates some anecdotes of
doubtful credibility. The Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus is
valuable as a description of Origen's method of teaching, and of the
wonderful influence which he possessed over his pupils. (Forout»
line of Origen's life, see below, p. 391 sq.)
250
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 2.
while Lsetus^ was governor of Alexandria and
the rest of Egypt, and Demetrius^ had lately-
received the episcopate of the parishes
3 there, as successor of Julian.'* As the flame
of persecution had been kindled greatly,^
and multitudes had gained the crown of mar-
tyrdom, such desire for martyrdom seized the
soul of Origen, although yet a boy, that he went
close to danger, springing forward and rush-
4 ing to the conflict in his eagerness. And
truly the termination of his life had been
very near had not the divine and heavenly Provi-
dence, for the benefit of many, prevented his
desire through the agency of his mother.
5 For, at first, entreating him, she begged
him to have compassion on her motherly
feelings toward him ; but finding, that when he
had learned that his father had been seized
and imprisoned, he was set the more resolutely,
and completely carried away with his zeal for
martyrdom, she hid all his clothing, and
6 thus compelled him to remain at home. But,
as there was nothing else that he could do,
and his zeal beyond his age would not suffer him
to be quiet, he sent to his father an encouraging
letter on martydom,'' in which he exhorted him,
saying, "Take heed not to change your mind
on our account."
This may be recorded as the first evidence of
Origen's youthful wisdom and of his genuine
7 love for piety. For even then he had
stored up no small resources in the words
of the faith, having been trained in the Divine
Scriptures from childhood. And he had not
studied them with indifference, for his father,
besides giving him the usual liberal educa-
tion,^ had made them a matter of no sec-
8 ondary importance. First of all, before
inducting him into the Greek sciences, he
drilled him in sacred studies, requiring
9 him to learn and recite every day. Nor
was this irksome to the boy, but he was
eager and diligent in these studies. <\nd
he was not satisfied with learning what was
simjilc and obvious in the sacred words, but
sought for something more, and even at that age
^ This Lxtus is to be distinguished from Q. jEmilius L32tus,
praetorian prefect under Commodus, who was put to death by the
Emperor Didius Julianus, in 193; and from Julius La;tus, minister
of Severus, who was executed in 199 (sec Dion Cassius, Bk. LXXIII.
chap. 16, and LXXV. chap. 10; cf. Tillemont, Hist, dcs ciitp. III. p.
21,55, and 58) . The dates of Laetus' rule in Egypt are unknown to us.
3 On the dates of Demetrius' episcopacy, sec Bk. V. chap. 22,
note 4.
* On Julian, see Bk. V. chap, g, note 2.
6 On the persecution, sec more particularly chap, i, note i.
" This epistle, which was apparently extant in the time of Eusc-
bius, and may have been contained in the collection made by him
(see chap. 36) . is now lost, and we possess only this sentence from it.
' Ti) TMi/ e-yifuicAiuji' TraiAeia. According to I.iddell and Scott,
»Y<c. n-aiSeia in later Greek meant " the circle of those arts and
sciences which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go
through before applying to any professional studies; school /earn-
ing, as opposed to the business of life." So Valesius says that the
Greeks understood by iyK. iiaOrnxma the branches in which the
youth were instructed; i.e. mathematics, grammar, and rhetoric,
philosophy not being included (see Valesius' note /« loco).
busied himself with deeper speculations. So
that he puzzled his father with inquiries for
the true meaning of the inspired Scriptures.
And his father rebuked him seemingly to 10
his face, telling him not to search beyond
his age, or further than the manifest meaning.
But by himself he rejoiced greatly and thanked
God, the author of all good, that he had deemed
him worthy to be the father of such a child.
And they say that often, standing by the 11
boy when asleep, he uncovered his breast
as if the Divine Spirit were enshrined within it,
and kissed it reverently ; considering himself
blessed in his goodly offspring.
These and other things like them are
related of Origen when a boy. But when 12
his father ended his life in martyrdom, he
was left with his mother and six younger broth-
ers when he was not quite seventeen years
old.^ And the property of his father being 13
confiscated to the royal treasury, he and
his family were in want of the necessaries of life.
But he was deemed worthy of Divine care.
And he found welcome and rest with a woman
of great wealth, and distinguished in her manner
of Ufe and in other respects. She was treat-
ing with great honor a famous heretic then in
Alexandria ; " who, however, was born in Anti-
och. He was with her as an adopted son, and
she treated him with the greatest kindness.
But although Origen was under the neces- 14
sity of associating with him, he neverthe-
less gave from this time on strong evidences of
his orthodoxy in the faith. For when on ac-
count of the apparent skill in argument^" of
Paul, — for this was the man's name, — a great
multitude came to him, not only of heretics but
also of our people, Origen could never be in-
duced to join with him in prayer;" for he held,
although a boy, the rule of the Church,^- and
abominated, as he somewhere expresses it,
heretical teachings.^^ Having been instructed
in the sciences of the Greeks by his father, he
8 On the date of Origen's birth, see note i.
" Of this Antiochene heretic Paul we know only what Euscbius
tells us here. His patroness seems to have been a Christian, and in
good standing in the Alexandrian church, or Origen would hardly
have made his home with her.
^^' 6ta TO hoKovv iKavov €v Ao-yw.
1' Redepenning (p. 189) refers to Origen's In Matt. Coin/nent.
Series, sec. 8g, where it is said, tnelitts est cum mtllo orarc, quain
cttin tnalis orare.
1- </>uAoTTcui' efcTi TTdiSb? (cardra [two MSS. Ka.v6va<;'\kKK>:-i\a'i.a.<;.
Compare the words of the Apostolic Constitutions, Vlll. 34: " I,et
not one of the faithful pray with a catechumen, no, not in the house;
for it is not reasonable that he who is admitted should be polluted
with one not admitted. Let not one of the godly pray with an
heretic, no, not in the house. For ' what fellowship hath light with
darkness?'" Compare also the Apostolic Canons, 11, 12, and 45.
The last reads: " Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who only
prays with heretics, be suspended; but if he also permit thcni to
perform any part of the office of a clergyman, let him be deprived."
Hcfele {Concilienf^sch. L p. 815') considers this canon only a " con-
sistent application of apostolic principles to particular cases, — an
application which was made from the first century on, and therefore
very old."
'■' Redepenning (p. 190) refers to the remarks of Origen upon
the nature and destructivencs of heresy collected by Pamphilus
{,Fragm. Apol. Panijih. Opp. Origen, IV. 694 [ed. Delaruc]),
VI. 3]
ORIGEN'S EARLY
CATECHETICAL LABOURS.
251
devoted himself after his death more assiduously
and exclusively to the study of literature, so that
he obtained considerable preparation in philol-
ogy" and was able not long after the death of his
father, by devoting himself to that subject, to
earn a compensation amply sufficient for his
needs at his age.^''
CHAPTER in.
IVhik still veiy Young, he taught diligently the
Word of Christ.
1 But while he was lecturing in the school,
as he tells us himself, and there was no one
at Alexandria to give instruction in the faith, as
all were driven away by the threat of persecu-
tion, some of the heathen came to him to
2 hear the word of God. The first of them,
he says, was Plutarch,' who after living well,
was honored with divine martyrdom. The sec-
ond was Heraclas," a brother of Plutarch ; who
after he too had given with him abundant evi-
dence of a philosophic and ascetic life, was
esteemed worthy to succeed Demetrius in the
bishopric of Alexandria.
l* eTTi Ta ypafjifjLaTiKa., ^5 ggg below, p. 392.
1 Of this Plutarch we know only what Eusebius tells us here,
and in chap. 4, where he says that he was the first of Origen' pupils
to suffer martyrdom. (On the date of the persecution in which he
suffered, see note 4).
^ Heraclas, brother of Plutarch, proved himself so good a pupil
that, when Origen later found the work of teaching too great for
him to manage alone, he made him his assistant, and committed the
elementary instruction to him (chap. 15). From chap, ig we learn
that he was for years a diligent student of Greek philosophy (chap.
15 implies his proficiency in it), and that he even went so far as to
. wear the philosopher's cloak all the time, although he was a pres-
byter in the Alexandrian church. His reputation for learning be-
came so great, as we learn from chap. 31, that Julius Africanus went
to Alexandria to see him. In 231, when Origen took his departure
from Alexandria, he left the catechetical school in the charge of
Heraclas (chap. 26), and in 23r or 232, upon the death of Demetrius
(see P>k. v. chap. 22, note 4), Heraclas became the latter's successor
as bishop of Alexandria (chaps. 26 and 29), and was succeeded in
the presidency of the catechetical school by Dionysius (chap. 29).
According to chap. 35 he was bishop for sixteen years and with this
both versions of the Chroi. agree, though Jerome puts his accession
two years too early — into the ninth year of Alexander Severus in-
stead of the eleventh — while giving at the same time, quite incon-
sistently, the proper date for his death. Heraclas' later relations to
Origen are not quite clear. He was evidently, in earlier years, one
of his best friends, and there is no adequate ground for the assump-
tion, which is quite common, that he was one of those who united
with Bishop Demetrius in condemning him. It is true, no at-
tempt seems to have been made after he became bishop to reverse
the sentence against Origen, and to invite him back to Alexandria;
but this does not prove that Heraclas did not remain friendly to him ;
for even when Dionysius (who kept up his relations with Origen,
as we know from chap. 46) became bishop (a.d. 248) , no such attempt
seems to have been made, although Origen was still alive and at
the height of his power. The fact that the greater part of the
clergy of Alexandria and Egypt were unfavorable to Origen, as
shown by their condemnation of him, does not imply that Heraclas
could not have been elected unless he too showed hostility to Origen ;
for Dionysius, who we know was not hostile, was appointed at that
tinie head of the catechetical school, and sixteen years later bishop.
It is true that Heraclas may not have sympathized with all of Ori-
gen's views, and may have thought some nf them heretical (his strict
judgment of heretics is seen from Bk. VII. chap. 7), but many even
of the best of Origen's friends and followers did likewise, so that
among his most devoted adherents were some of the most orthodox
Fathers of the Church (e.g. the two Oregories and Basil). That
Heraclas did not agree with Origen in all his opinions (if he did not,
he may not have cared to press his return to Alexandria) does not
prove therefore that he took part in the condemnatory action of the
synod, and that he was himself in later life hostile to Origen.
He was in his eighteenth year when he 3
took charge of the catechetical school.''
He was prominent also at this time, during the
persecution under iVquila,' the governor of Alex-
andria, when his name became celebrated among
the leaders in the faith, through the kindness
and goodwill which he manifested toward all
the holy martyrs, whether known to him or
strangers. For not only was he with them 4
while in bonds, and until their final con-
demnation, but when the holy martyrs were led
to death, he was very bold and went with them
into danger. So that as he acted bravely, and
with great boldness saluted the martyrs with a
kiss, oftentimes the heathen multitude round
about them became infuriated, and were on
the point of rushing upon him. But through 5
the helping hand of God, he escaped abso-
lutely and marvelously. And this same divine
and heavenly power, again and again, it is im-
possible to say how often, on account of his
great zeal and boldness for the words of Christ,
guarded him when thus endangered.^ So great
was the enmity of the unbelievers toward him, on
account of the multitude that were instructed by
him in the sacred faith, that they placed bands of
soldiers around the house where he abode.
Thus day by day the persecution burned 6
against him, so that the whole city could
no longer contain him ; but he removed from
house to house and was driven in every direc-
tion because of the multitude who attended upon
the divine instruction which he gave. For his
life also exhibited right and admirable conduct
according to the practice of genuine philoso-
phy. For they say that his manner of life was 7
as his doctrine, and his doctrine as his life.^
Therefore, by the divine Power working with him
he aroused a great many to his own zeal.
But when he saw yet more coming to him 8
for instruction, and the catechetical school
5 See below, p. 392.
'' It is not clear from Eusebius' language whether Aquila was
successor of Lastus as viceroy of Egypt (as Redepenning assumes
apparently quite without misgiving), or simply governor of Alexan-
dria. He calls LcBtus (in chap. 2) governor of Alexandria and of all
Egypt, while A(iuila is called simply governor of Alexandria. If
this difference were insisted on as marking a real distinction, then
Aquila would have to be regarded as the chief officer of Alexandria
only, and hence subordinate in dignity to the viceroy of Egypt. The
term used to describe his position {ji\yov\xf.vov) is not, however, the
technical one for the chief officer of Alexandria (see Mommsen,
Provinces of the Roinajt Etnpire ; Scribner's ed., II. p. 267 ff.),
and hence his position cannot be decided with certainty. In any
case, whether he succeeded Laetus, or was his subordinate, the dates
of his accession to and retirement from office are unknown, and
hence the time at which the persecutions mentioned took place can-
not be determined with exactness. We simply know that they
occurred after 203 (for Origen had already taken charge of the
catechetical school, and some of his pupils perished in the persecu-
tions) and before 211, the date of .Severus' death.
^' How it happened that Origen escaped the persecution, when,
according to Eusebius, he exposed himself so continually, and was
so hated by the heathen populace, we cannot tell. Eusebius ascribes
it solely to the grace of God here, and in ch.ap. 4.
'■ olo? 6 A6yo5 Toio? 6 Pi'o? was a Greek proverb. Compare the
words of Seneca, in Ep. 114 ad Lncilium, " Apud Graecos in pro-
verbium ze.?,?A\. talis honiiyiibus /tiit oratio, qualis vita" (quoted
by Redepenning, p. 196).
252
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBItJS.
[VI. 3-
had been entrusted to him alone by Demetrius,
who presided over the church, he considered the
teaching of grammatical science inconsistent with
training in divine subjects,'^ and forthwith he gave
up his grammatical school as unprofitable
9 and a hindrance to sacred learning. Then,
with becoming consideration, that he might
not need aid from others, he disposed of whatever
valuable books of ancient literature he possessed,
being satisfied with receiving from the purchaser
four oboli a day.^ For many years he lived
philosophically'-* in this manner, putting away all
the incentives of youthful desires. Through the
entire day he endured no small amount of dis-
cipline ; and for the greater part of the night he
gave himself to the study of the Divine Scrip-
tures. He restrained himself as much as possi-
ble by a most philosophic life ; sometimes by
the discipline of fasting, again by limited time for
sleep. And in his zeal he never lay upon a
10 bed, but upon the ground. Most of all, he
thought that the words of the Saviour in the
Gospel should be observed, in which he exhorts
not to have two coats nor to use shoes,^" nor
to occupy oneself with cares for the future.^^
11 With a zeal beyond his age he continued in
cold and nakedness ; and, going to the very
extreme of poverty, he greatly astonished those
about him. And indeed he grieved many of his
friends who desired to share their possessions
with him, on account of the wearisome toil
which they saw him enduring in the teach-
12 ing of divine things. But he did not relax
his perseverance. He is said to have walked
' This does not mean that he considered the study of grammar
and literature injurious to the Christian, or detrimental to his theo-
logical studies. His opinion on that subject is clear enough from all
his writings and from his conduct as pictured in chaps. i8 and ig.
Nor does it on the other hand imply, as Crusd supposes, that up to
this time he had been teaching secular branches exclusively ; but
it means simply that the demands upon him for instruction in the
faith were so great, now that the catechetical school had been offi-
cially entrusted to him by Demetrius, that he felt that he could no
longer continue to teach secular literature as he had been doing, but
must give up that part of his work, and devote himself exclusively
to instruction in sacred things.
'* The obolus was a small Greek coin, equivalent to about three
and a half cents of our money. Four oboli a day could have been
sufficient, even in that age, only for the barest necessities of life.
But with his ascetic tendencies, these were all that Origen wished.
" It was very common from the fourth century on (the writer
knows of no instances earlier than Eusebius) to call an ascetic mode
of life "philosophical," or "the life of a philosopher" (see § 2 of
this chapter, and compare Chrysostom's works, where the word
occurs very frequently m this sense). Origen, in his ascetic prac-
tices, was quite in accord with the prevailing Christian sentiment of
his own and subsequent centuries, which looked upon bodily disci-
Cline of an ascetic kind, not indeed as rcejuircd, but as commended
y Christ. The growing sentiment had its roots partly in the pre-
vailing ideas of contemporary philosophy, which instinctively em-
phasized strongly the dualism of spirit and matter, and the necessity
of subduing the latter to the former, and partly in the increasing
moral corruptness of society, which caused those who wished to lead
holy lives to feel that only by eschewing the things of sense could
the soul attain purity. Under pressure from without and within, it
became very easy to misinterpret various sayings of Christ, and
thus to find in the Gospels ringmg exhortations to a life of the most
rigid asceticism. Clement of Alexandria was almost the only one
of the great Christian writers after the middle of the second century
who distinfiuished between the true and the false in this matter.
Compare his admirable tract, Qitis dives salvetttr, and contrast the
position taken there with the foolish extreme pursued l)y Origen, as
recorded in this chapter.
>" See Matt. x. lo. " See Matt. vi. 34.
for a number of years never wearing a shoe, and,
for a great many years, to have abstained from
the use of wine, and of all other things beyond his
necessary food ; so that he was in danger of break-
ing down and destroying his constitution.^^
By giving such evidences of a philosophic 13
life to those who saw him, he aroused many
of his pupils to similar zeal ; so that prominent
men even of the unbelieving heathen and men
that followed learning and philosophy were led
to his instruction. Some of them having re-
ceived from him into the depth of their souls
faith in the Divine Word, became prominent in
the persecution then prevailing ; and some of
them were seized and suffered martydom.
CHAPTER IV.
The Pupils of Origen that became Martyrs,
The first of these was Plutarch, who was 1
mentioned just above.^ As he was led to
death, the man of whom we are speaking being
with him at the end of his life, came near being
slain by his fellow-citizens, as if he were the
cause of his death. But the providence of
God preserved him at this time also. After 2
Plutarch, the second martyr among the
pupils of Origen was Serenus,- who gave through
fire a proof of the faith which he had re-
ceived. The third martyr from the same 3
school was Herachdes,^ and after him the
fourth was Hero.'* The former of these was
as yet a catechumen, and the latter had but
recently been baptized. Both of them were
beheaded. After them, the fifth from the same
school proclaimed as an athlete of piety was
another Serenus, who, it is reported, was be-
headed, after a long endurance of tortures.
And of women, Herais ^ died while yet a cate-
chumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen
himself somewhere says.
'- Greek: Suipa^, properly " chest." Rufinus and Christophor-
sonus translate stomachniu, and Valesius approves; but there
is no authority for such a use of the term Suipof , so far as 1 can
ascertain. The proper Greek term for stomach is o-tomoxos, which
is uniformly employed by Galen and other medical writers.
1 See the previous chapter, § 2. The martyrdom of these disci-
ples of Origen took place under Aquila, and hence the date depends
on the dale of his rule, which cannot be fixed with exactness, as
remarked in note 4 on the previous chapter.
2 These two persons named Serenus, the first of whom w.-is
burned, the second beheaded, are known to us only from this
chapter. . . , ■
s Of this Heraclides, we know only what is told us in this
chapter. He, with the other martyrs mentioned in this connection,
is commemorated in the mediaeval martyrologies, but our authentic
information is limited to what Eusebius tells us here.
* Our authentic information of Hero is likewise limited to this
account of Eusebius. .
^ Herais likewise is known to us from this ch.apter alone. It is
interesting to note that Origen's pupils were not confined to the male
sex. His association with female catechumens, which his office of
instructor entailed upon him, formed one reason for the act of self-
mutilation which he committed (see chap. 8, § 2).
VI. 6.]
POTAMI/ENA AND BASILIDES.
253
CHAPTER V.
Foiamicena}
1 Basilides - may be counted the seventh
of these. He led to martyrdom the cele-
brated Potamixna, who is still fomous among
the people of the country for the many things
which she endured for the preservation of her
chastity and virginity. For she was blooming
in the perfection of her mind and her physical
graces. Ha\-ing suffered much for the faith of
Christ, finally after tortures dreadful and terri-
ble to speak of, she with her mother, Mar-
2 cella,^ was put to death by fire. They say
that the judge, Aquila by name, having
inflicted severe tortures upon her entire body, at
last threatened to hand her over to the gladia-
tors for bodily abuse. After a little considera-
tion, being asked for her decision, she made
a reply which was regarded as impious.
3 Thereupon she received sentence immedi-
ately, and Basilides, one of the officers of
the army, led her to death. But as the people
attempted to annoy and insult her with abusive
words, he drove back her insulters, showing her
much pity and kindness. And perceiving the
man's sympathy for her, she exhorted him to be
of good courage, for she would supplicate her
Lord for him after her departure, and he would
soon receive a reward for the kindness he
4 had shown her. Having said this, she
nobly sustained the issue, burning pitch
being poured little by little, over various parts
of her body, from the sole of her feet to the
crown of her head. Such was the conflict en-
dured by this famous maiden.
5 Not long after this Basilides, being asked
by his fellow-soldiers to swear for a cer-
tain reason, declared that it was not lawful for
him to swear at all, for he was a Christian, and
he confessed this openly. At first they thought
that he was jesting, but when he continued to
affirm it, he was led to the judge, and, acknowl-
edging his conviction before him, he was im-
1 Potamiaena, one of the most celebrated of the martyrs that suf-
fered under Severus, is made by Rufinus a disciple of Origen, but
Eusebius does not say that she was, and indeed, in making Basil-
ides the seventh of Origen's disciples to suffer, he evidently excludes
Potamia;na from the number. Quite a full account of her martyrdom
is given by Palladius in his Historia Lausiaca, chap. 3 (Migne's
Pair. Gr. XXXIV. 1014), which contains some characteristic de-
tails not mentioned by Eusebius. It appears from that account that
she was a slave, and that her master, not being able to induce her
to yield to his passion, accused her before the judge as a Christian,
bribing him, if possible, to break her resolution by tortures, and
then return her to him, or, if that was not possible, to put her to
death as a Christian. We cannot judge as to the e.xact truth of this
and other details related by Palladius, but his history (which was
written early in the fifth century) is, in the main at least, reliable,
except where it deals with miracles and prodigies (cf. the article on
Palladius of Helenopolis, in the Diet, of Christ. Bios;.).
2 Basilides is clearly reckoned here among the disciples of Ori-
gen. The correctness of Eusebius' statement has been doubted, but
there is no ground for such doubt, for there is no reason to suppose
that all of Origen's pupils became converted under his instruction.
^ Of Marcella, we know only that she was the mother of the
more celebrated Potamixna, and suffered martyrdom by fire.
prisoned. But the brethren in God com- 6
ing to him and imjuiring the reason of this
sudden and remarkable resolution, he is reported
to have said that Potamiaena, for three days after
her martyrdom, stood beside him by night and
])laccd a crown on his head, and said that she
had besought the Lord for him and had obtained
what she asked, and that soon she would take
him with her. Thereupon the brethren gave
him the seal^ of the Lord; and on the next
day, after giving glorious testimony for the
Lord, he was beheaded. And many others 7
in Alexandria are recorded to have ac-
cepted speedily the word of Christ in those
times. For Potamiasna appeared to them in
their dreams and exhorted them. But let this
suffice in regard to this matter.
CHAPTER VL
Clement of Alexandria.
Clement^ having succeeded Pantsenus,- had
charge at that time of the catechetical instruc-
tion in Alexandria, so that Origen also, while
still a boy,^ was one of his pupils. In the first
■* The word <Tif>payi'; , " seal," was very commonly used by the
Fathers to signify baptism (see Suicer's Thesaurus).
' This chapter has no connection with the preceding, and its
insertion at this point has no good ground, for Clement has been
already handled in the fifth book; and if Eusebius wished to refer to
him again in connection with Origen, he should have done so in
chap. 3, where Origen's appointment as head of the catechetical
school is mentioned. (Redepenning, however, approves the present
order; vol. I. p. 431 sqq.) Rufinus felt the inconsistency, and hence
inserted chaps. 6 and 7 in the middle of chap. 3, where the account of
Origen's appointment by Demetrius is given. Valesius considers
the occurrence of this mention of Clement at this point a sign that
Eusebius did not give his work a final revision. Chap. 13 is inserted
in the same abrupt way, quite out of harmony with the context.
Upon the life of Clement of Alexandria, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1.
The catechetical school was vacant, as we learn from cliap. 2, in the
year 203, and was then taken in charge by Origen, so that the " that
time " referred to by Eusebius in this sentence must be carried back
of the events related in the prev ious chapters. The cause of Clement's
leaving the school was probably the persecution begun by Severus
in 202 (" all were driven away by the threatening aspect of persecu-
tion," according to chap. 3, § i) ; for since Origen was one of his
pupils he can hardly have left long before that time. That it was
not unworthy cowardice which led Clement to take his departure is
clear enough from the words of Alexander in chaps. 11 and 14, from
the high reputation which he continued to enjoy throughout the
Church, and from his own utterances on the subject of martyrdom
scattered through his works.
- On Panta;nus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2.
3 Stephanus, Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heini-
chen, following two important MSS. and the translation of Rufinus,
omit the words rtaiSa orra " while a boy." But the words are found
in all the other codices (the chief witnesses of two of the three great
families of MSS. being for them) and in Nicephorus. The manuscript
authority is therefore overwhelmingly in favor of the words, and
they are adopted by Valesius, Zimmermann, and Cruse. Rufinus
is a strong witness against the words, but, as Redepenning justly
remarks, having inserted this chapter, as he did, in the midst of the
description of Origen's early years (see note i), the words 7rai6a oi-xa
would be quite superfluous and even out of place, and hence he would
naturally omit them. So far as the probabilities of the insertion
or omission of the words in the present passage are concerned, it
seems to me more natural to suppose that a copyist, findmg the
words at this late stage in the account of Origen's life, would be
inclined to omit them, than that, not finding them there he should,
upon historical grounds (which he could have reached only after
some reflection), think that they ought to be inserted. The latter
would be not only a more difficult but also a much graver step than
the former. There seems, then, to be no good warrant for omit-
ting these words. We learn from chap. 3 that he took charge of
the catechetical school when he was in his eighteenth year, within
a year therefore after the death of his father. And we learn that
254
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 6.
book of the work called Stromata, which
Clement wrote, he gives a chronological table,^
bringing events down to the death of Commodus.
So it is evident that that work was written dur-
ing the reign of Severus, whose times we are
now recording.
CHAPTER VII.
TJie Writer, Judas}
At this time another writer, Judas, discoursing
about the seventy weeks in Daniel, brings down
the chronology to the tenth year of the reign of
Severus. He thought that the coming of Anti-
christ, which was much talked about, was then
near.- So greatly did the agitation caused by
the persecution of our people at this time dis-
turb the minds of many.
CHAPTER VIII.
Origen's Daring Deed.
1 At this time while Origen was conduct-
ing catechetical instruction at Alexandria, a
deed was done by him which evidenced an
immature and youthful mind, but at the same
time gave the highest proof of faith and conti-
before he took charge of the school, all who had given instruction
there had been driven away by the persecution. Clement, therefore,
must have left before Origen's eighteenth year, and hence the latter
must have studied with him before the persecution had broken up
the school, and in all probability before the death of Leonides. In
any case, therefore, he was still a boy when under Clement, and
even if we omit the words — " while a boy " — here, we shall not be
warranted in putting his student days into the period of his maturity,
as some would do. Upon this subject, see Redepenning, I. p. 431 sqq.,
who adduces still other arguments for the position taken in this note
which it is not necessary to repeat here.
* In Stromata, Bk. I. chap. 21. On this and the other works of
Clement, see chap. 13.
1 The mention of the writer Judas at this point seems, at first
sight, as illogical as the reference to Clement in the preceding chap-
ter. But it does not violate chronology as that did; and hence, if
the account of Origen's life was to be broken anywhere for such an
insertion, there was perhaps no better place. We cannot conclude,
therefore, that Eusebius, had he revised his work, would have
changed the position of this chapter, as Valesius suggests (see the
previous chapter, note i).
Jerome {de vir. ill. c. 52) repeats Eusebius' notice of Judas, but
adds nothing to it, and we know no more about him. Since he
believed that the appearance of Antichrist was at hand, he must
have written before the persecutions had given place again to peace,
and hence not long after 202, the date to which he extended his
chronology. Whether the work mentioned by Eusebius was a
commentary or a work on chronology is not clear. It was possibly
an historical demonstration of the truth of Daniel's prophecies, and
an interpretation of those yet unfulfilled, in which case it combined
history and exegesis.
2 It was the common belief in the Church, from the time of the
apostles until the time of Constantine, that the second coming of
Christ would very speedily take place. This belief was especially
pronounced among the Montanists, Montanus having proclaimed
that the parousia would occur belbre his death, and even having
gone so far as to attempt to collect all the faithful (Montanists) in
one place in Phrygia, where they were to await that event and where
the new Jerusalem was to be set up (see above, Bk. V. chap. 18,
note 6). There is nothing surprising in Judas' idea that this severe
persecution must be the beginning of the end, for all through the
earlier centuries of the Church (and even to some extent in later
centuries) there were never wanting those who interi)rctcd similar
catastrophes in the same way; although after the third century the
belief that the end was at hand grew constantly weaker.
nence.^ For he took the words, "There 2
are eunuchs who have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," ^ in
too literal and extreme a sense. And in order
to fulfill the Saviour's word, and at the same
time to take away from the unbelievers all oppor-
tunity for scandal, — for, although young, he met
for the study of divine things with women as
well as men, — he carried out in action the
word of the Saviour. He thought that this
would not be known by many of his acquaint-
ances. But it was impossible for him, though de-
siring to do so, to keep such an action secret.
When Demetrius, who presided over that 3
parish, at last learned of this, he admired
greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he
perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his
faith, he immediately exhorted him to courage,
and urged him the more to continue his work
of catechetical instruction. Such was he at 4
that time. But soon afterward, seeing that
he was prospering, and becoming great and dis-
tinguished among all men, the same Demetrius,
overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed
1 This act of Origen's has been greatly discussed, and some have
even gone so far as to believe that he never committed the act, but
that the report of it arose from a misunderstanding of certain figura-
tive expressions used by him (so, e.g., Boehringer, Schnitzer, and
Baur). There is no reason, however, to doubt the report, for which
we have unimpeachable testimony, and which is in itself not at all
surprising (see the arguments of Redepenning, I. p. 444 sqq.). The
act was contrary to the civil law (see Suetonius, Doiiiitian, c. 7;
and cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 29), and yet was a very common
one ; the existence of the law itself would alone prove what we know
from many sources to have been the fact. Nor was Origen alone
among the Christians (cf. e.g. Origen, In Matt., XV. i, the passage
of Justin Martyr referred to above, and also the first canon of the
Council of Nicaea, the very existence of which proves the necessity
of it). It was natural that Christians, seeking purity of life, and
strongly ascetic in their tendencies, should be influenced by the
actions of those about them, who sought thus to be freed from the
domination of the passions, and should interpret certain passages of
the Bible as commending the act. Knowing it to be so common,
and knowing Origen's character, as revealed to us in chap. 3, above
(to say nothing of his own writings), we can hardly be surprised
that he performed the act. His chief motive was undoubtedly the
same as that which actuated him in all his ascetic practices, the
attainment of higher holiness through the subjugation of his pas-
sions, and the desire to sacrifice everything fleshly for the sake of
Christ. Of course this could not have led him to perform the act
he did, unless he had entirely misunderstood, as Eusebius says he
did, the words of Christ quoted below. But he was by no means
the only one to misunderstand them (see Suicer's T/iesaiiriis, I.
1255 sq.). Eusebius s.ays that the requirements of his position also
had something to do with his resolve. He was obliged to teach both
men and women, and both day and night (as we learn from § 7),
and Eusebius thinks he would naturally desire to avoid scandal.
At the same time, this motive can hardly have weighed very heavily,
if at all, with him ; for had his giving instruction in this way been in
danger of causing serious scandal, other easier methods of avoiding
such scandal might have been devised, and undoubtedly would have
been, by the bishop. And the fact is, he seems to have wished to
conceal the act, which is inconsistent with the idea that he per-
formed it for the sake of .avoiding scandal. It is quite likely that
his intimate association with women may have had considerable to
do with his resolve, because he may have found that such associa-
tion aroused his unsubdued passions, and therefore felt that they
must be eradicated, if he was to go about his duties with a pure and
single heart. That he afterward repented his youthful act, and
judged the words of Christ more wisely, is clear from what he says
in his Comment, in Matt. XV. i. And yet he never outgrew his
false notions of the superior virtue of an ascetic life. His act seems
to have caused a reaction in his mind which led him into doubt and
despondency for a time; for Demetrius found it necessary to exhort
him, to cherish confidence, and to urge him to continue his work
of instruction. Eusebius, while not approving Origen's act, yet
evidently admired him the more for the boldness and for the spirit
of self-sacrifice shown in its performance.
2 Matt. xix. 12.
VI. 9.]
THE MIRACLES OF NARCISSUS.
255
as most foolish to the bishops throughout the
world. But the bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem,
who were especially notable and distinguisheil
among the bishops of Palestine, considering
Origen worthy in the highest degree of the
5 honor, ordained him a presbyter.' There-
upon his fame increased greatly, and his
name became renowned everywhere, and he
obtained no small reputation for virtue and wis-
dom. But Demetrius, having nothing else that
he could say against him, save this deed of his
boyhood, accused him bitterly,'* and dared to
include with him in these accusations those
who had raised him to the presbyterate.
6 These things, however, took place a little
later. But at this time Origen continued
fearlessly the instruction in divine things at
Alexandria by day and night to all who came to
him ; devoting his entire leisure without cessa-
tion to divine studies and to his pupils.
7 Severus, having held the government for
eighteen years, was succeeded by his son,
Antoninus.^ Among those who had endured
courageously the persecution of that time, and
had been preserved by the Providence of God
through the conflicts of confession, was Alexan-
der, of whom we have spoken already " as bishop
3 See chap. 23.
* On the relations existing between Demetrius and Origen, see
below, p. 394.
" Septimius Severus died on February 4, 211, after a reign of a
little more than seventeen years and eight months, and was suc-
ceeded by his two sons, Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Bassi-
anus (commonly known by his nickname Caracalla, which, however,
was never used in official documents or inscriptions), and Lucius,
or Publius, Septimius Geta. Eusebius mentions here only the for-
mer, giving him his official name, Antoninus.
•^ Eusebius makes a slip here, as this is the first time he has men-
tioned Alexander in his Church History. He was very likely un-
der the impression that he had mentioned him just above, where he
referred to the bishops of Csesarea and Jerusalem. He does refer to
him in his Chron., putting his appointment as assistant bishop into
the second year of Caracalla (Arinen. fourth year), and calling him
the thirty-fifth bishop of Jerusalem (Arincn. thirty-sixth). In Bk.
V. chap. 12 of the History (also in the Chroii.') we are told that
Narcissus was the thirtieth bishop of Jerusalem. The number thirty-
five for Alexander (the number thirty-six of the A riiwn. is a mistake,
and is set right in connection with Alexander's successor, who is also
called the thirty-sixth) is made out by counting the three bishops
mentioned in chap. 10, and then reckoning the second episcopate of
Narcissus (see the same chapter) as the thirty-fourth. We learn
from chap. 14 that Alexander was an early friend of Origen's, and a
fellow-pupil in the school of Clement. We know him next as bishop
of some church in Cappadocia (chap. 11; see note 2 on that chap-
ter), whence he was called to be assistant bishop of Jerusalem (see
the same chapter). From this passage, compared with chap. 11,
we learn that Alexander was imprisoned during the persecutions, and
the Chron. gives the year of his " confession " as 203 a.d. But froni
chap. II we learn that he wrote while still in prison to the church of
Antioch on occasion of the appointment of Asclepiades to the episco-
pate there. According to the Chron. Asclepiades did not become
bishop until 211; and though this may not be the exact date, yet it
cannot be far out of the way (see chap. 11, note 6) ; and hence, if
Alexander was a confessor in 203, he must have remained in prison
a number of years, or else have undergone a second persecution. It
is probable either that the date 203 is quite wrong, or else that he
suffered a second time toward the close of Severus' reign ; for the per-
secution, so far as we know, was not so continuous during that reign
•as to keep one man confined for eight years. Our knowledge of the
persecutions in Asia Minor at this time is very limited, but they do
not seem to have been of great severity or of long duration. The
date of Alexander's episcopate in Cappadocia it is impossible to de-
termine, though as he was a fellow-pupil of Origen's in Alexandria,
it cannot have begun much, if any, before 202. The date of his
translation to the see of Jerusalem is likewise uncertain. The
Chron. gives the second year of Caracalla (Wrw/**;/. fourth). The
connection in which Eusebius mentions it in chap. 11 makes it look
as if it took place before Asclepiades' accession to the see of Anti-
och; but this is hardly possible, for it was his firmness under perse-
of the church in Jerusalem. On account of his
[ire-eminence in tlie confession of Christ he was
thought worthy of that bishopric, while Narcis-
sus,' his predecessor, was still living.
CHAPTER IX.
The Miracles of Narcissus.
The citizens of that parish mention many 1
other miracles of Narcissus, on the tradi-
tion of the brethren who succeeded him ; among
which they relate the following wonder as
performed by him. They say that the oil 2
once failed while the deacons were watching
through the night at the great paschal vigil.
Thereupon the whole multitude being dismayed.
Narcissus directed those who attended to the
lights, to draw water and bring it to him.
This being immediately done he prayed 3
over the water, and with firm faith in the
Lord, commanded them to pour it into the
lamps. And when they had done so, contrary to
all expectation by a wonderful and divine power,
the nature of the water was changed into that of
oil. A small portion of it has been preserved
even to our day by many of the brethren there
as a memento of the wonder.^
They tell many other things worthy to be 4
noted of the life of this man, among which
is this. Certain base men being unable to en-
dure the strength and firmness of his life, and
fearing punishment for the many evil deeds of
which they were conscious, sought by plotting
to anticipate him, and circulated a terrible
slander against him. And to persuade 5
those who heard of it, they confirmed their
accusations with oaths : one invoked upon him-
self destruction by fire ; another the wasting of
his body by a foul disease ; the third the loss of
cution which elevated him to the see of Jerusalem (according to this
passage), and it is apparently that persecution which he is enduring
when Asclepiades becomes bishop. We find no reason, then, for
correcting the date of his translation to Jerusalem given by the
Chron. At any rate, he was bishop of Jerusalem when Origen
visited Palestine in 216 (see chap, ig, § 17). In 231 he assisted at
the ordination of Origen (see chap. 23, note 6), and finally per-
ished in prison during the Decian perscution (see chaps. 39 and 46).
His friendship for Origen was warm and steadfast (cf., besides the
other passages referred to, chap. 27). The latter commemorates the
loveliness and gentleness of his character in his first Homily on
I Satnuel, § i. He collected a valuable library in Jerusalem, which
Eusebius made use of in the composition of his History (see chap.
20). This act shows the literary tastes of the man. Of his epistles
only the five fragments preserved by Eusebius (chaps. 11, 14, and
19) are now extant. Jerome (^ife vir. ill. 62) says that other epistles
were extant in his day; and he relates, on the authority of an epistle
written pro Origene contra Dcmetrium, that Alexander had or-
dained Ongen jHxta tcstimonimn Danetri. This epistle is not
mentioned by Eusebius, but in spite of Jerome's usu.al dependence
upon the latter, there is no good reason to doubt the truth of his
statement in this case (see below, p. 396).
' On Narcissus, see the next three chapters, and also Bk. V.
chap. 12, note i.
' This miracle is related by Eusebius upon the testimony, not
of documents, but of those who had shown him the oil, which was
preserved in Jerusalem down to that time; oi rrj? TrapoiKi'a? TroAtTai.
. . . to-TopoOo-i, he says. His travels had evidently not taught him
to disbelieve every wonderful tale that was told him.
256
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 9.
his eyes. But though they swore in this man-
ner, they could not affect the mind of the be-
lievers ; because the continence and virtuous
life of Narcissus were well known to all.
6 But he could not in any wise endure the
wickedness of these men ; and as he had
followed a philosophic ^ life for a long time, he
fled from the whole body of the Church, and
hid himself in desert and secret places, and
7 remained there many years.^ But the great
eye of judgment was not unmoved by these
things, but soon looked down upon these impi-
ous men, and brought on them the curses with
which they had bound themselves. The resi-
dence of the first, from nothing but a little spark
falling upon it, was entirely consumed by night,
and he perished with all his family. The sec-
ond was speedily covered with the disease which
he had imprecated upon himself, from the
8 sole of his feet to his head. But the third,
perceiving what had happened to the others,
and fearing the inevitable judgment of God, the
ruler of all, confessed publicly what they had
plotted together. And in his repentance he
became so wasted by his great lamentations,
and continued weeping to such an extent, that
both his eyes were destroyed. Such were the
punishments which these men received for their
falsehood.
CHAPTER X.
The Bishops of Jerusalem.
Narcissus having departed, and no one know-
ing where he was, those presiding over the neigh-
boring churches thought it best to ordain another
bishop. His name was Dius.* He presided but
a short time, and Germanio succeeded him. He
was followed by Gordius,- in whose time Narcis-
sus appeared again, as if raised from the dead.^
And immediately the brethren besought him to
take the episcopate, as all admired him the
more on account of his retirement and philos-
ophy, and especially because of the punishment
with which God had avenged him.
' Sec above, chap. 3, note g.
3 The date of Narcissus" retirement we have no means of ascer-
taining.
1 Of these three bishops, Dius, Germanio, and Gordius, we know
nothing more than is told us here. Syncellus assigns eight years
to Dius, four to Gcrm.anio, and five to Sardianus, whom he names
instead of Gordius. Epiphanius reports that Dius was bishop until
Severus (193 A.n.), and Gordius until Antonine (i.e. Caracalla, 211
A.D.). But no reliance is to be placed upon these figures or dates,
as remarked above, I'.k. V. chap. 12, note 2.
' Eusebius and Epiphanius give TopSio?, and Jerome, Gordius;
but the Armenian has Gordianus, and Syncellus, iapSiaros. What
became of Gordius when Narcissus reappeared we do not know.
He must have died very speedily, or some compromise would have
been made, as it seems, which would have rendered the appointment
of Alexander as assistant bishop unnecessary.
^ Literally, " as if from a Ksuriuctiun " (uo-Trep c{ a^a^iwo-eu;).
CHAPTER XL
Alexander.
But as on account of his great age Nar- 1
cissus was no longer able to perform his
official duties,^ the Providence of God called to
the office with him, by a revelation given him
in a night vision, the above-mentioned Alexan-
der, who was then bishop of another parish.-
1 The extreme age of Narcissus at this time is evident from the
fact that Alexander, writing before the year 216 (see note 4), says
that Narcissus is alre.idy in his ii6th year. The translation of
Alexander to Jerusalem must have t.iken place about 212 (see chap.
8, note 6), and hence Narcissus was now more than no years old.
The appointment of Alexander as Narcissus' assistant involved two
acts which were even at that time not common, and which were later
forbidden by canon; first the translation of a bishop from one see
to another, and secondly the appointment of an assistant bishop,
which made two bishops in one city. The Apost. Canons (No. 14)
ordain that " a bishop ought not to leave his own parish and leap to
another, although the multitude should compel him, unless there be
some good reason forcing him to do this, as that he can contribute
much greater profit to the people of the new parish by the word of
piety; but this is not to be settled by himself, but by the judgment
of many bishops and very great supplication." It has been disputed
whether this canon is older or younger than the fifteenth canon of
Nicsea, which forbids unconditionally the practice of translation from
one see to another. Whichever may be the older, it is certain
that even the Council of NicEea considered its own canon as liable to
exceptions in certain cases, for it translated Eustathias from Berjea
to Antioch (see .Sozomen, H, E, I. 2). The truth is, the rule was
established — whether before or for the first time at the Council of
Nicaea — chiefly in order to guard against the ambition of aspiring
men who might wish to go from a smaller to a greater parish, and
to prevent, as the Nicene Canon says, the many disorders and
quarrels which the custom of translation caused; and a ride formed
on such grounds of expediency was of course liable to exception
whenever the good of the Church seemed to demand it, and therefore,
whether the fourteenth Apostolic Canon is more ancient than the
Nicene Council or not, it certainly embodies a principle which must
long have been in force, and which we find in fact acted upon in the
present case; for the translation of Alexander takes place " with the
common consent of the bishops of the neighboring churches," or, as
Jerome puts it, cunctis z'« Palesihia episcopis in jiiinvt congre-
gatis, which is quite in accord with the provision of the Apostolic
Canons. There were some in the early Church who thought it abso-
lutely unlawful under any circumstances for a bishop to be trans-
lated (cf. Jerome's Ep. ad Ocemniiii; Migne, Ep. 69, § 5), but this
was not the common view, as Bingham (Atitiq. VI. 4. 6) well
observes, and instances of translation from one see to another were
during all these centuries common (cf. e.g. Socrates, H. E. VII. 36),
although always of course exceptional, and considered lawful only
when made for good and sufficient reasons. To say, therefore, with
Valesius that these Palestinian bishops violated a rule of the Church
in translating Alexander is too strong. They were evidently uncon-
scious of anything uncanonical, or even irregular in their action,
though it is clear that they regarded the step as too important to be
taken without the approval of all the bishops of the neighborhood.
In regard to assistant bishops, Valesius correctly remarks that this is
the first instance of the kind known to us, but it is by no means the
only one, for the following centuries furnish numerous examples;
e.g. Theotecnus and Anatolius in Ca;sarea (see below, Bk. VII,
chap. 32), RIaximus and Macarius in Jerusalem (see Sozomen, H. E.
II. 20); and so in Africa Valerius of Hippo had Augustine as his
coadjutor (Possidius, I'lta. Ang. chap. 8; see Bingham's ^«^/(/. II.
13. 4 for other instances and for a discussion of the whole subject).
The principle was in force from as early as the third century (.see
Cypnan to Cornelius, Ep. 40, al. 44 and to Antonianus, Ep. 51,
al. 55) that there should be only one bishop in a city, and we
see from the works of various F.athers that this rule was universally
accepted at an early date. The eighth canon of Nicasa refers to this
principle in passing as if it were already firmly established, and the
council evidently did not think it necessary to promulgate a special
canon on the subject. Becau.se of this principle, Augusiine hesitated
to allow himself to be ordained assistant bishop of Hippo; and
although his scruples were overcome at the time, he afterward, upon
learning of the Nicene Canon, considered the practice of having a
co.adjutor illegal and refused to ordain one for himself. But, as the
instances referred to above and many others show, not all the Church
interpreted the principle as rigidly as Augustine did, and hence
under certain circumstances exceptions were made to the rule, and
were looked upon throughout the Church as quite lawful. The
existence of two bishops in one city as a matter of compromise, for
the sake of healing a schism, formed one common exception to the
general principle (see Bingham, II. 13. 2), and the appointment of
coadjutors, as in the present case, formed another.
2 Of what city in Cappadocia Alexander was bishop we are not
told by Eusebius, nor by our other ancient authorities. Valesius
VI. 12.]
ALEXANDER, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM.
257
2 Thereupon, as by Divine direction, he jour-
neyed from the land of Cappadocia, where
he first held the episcopate, to Jerusalem, in
consequence of a vow and for the sake of infor-
mation in regard to its places.'' They received
him there with great cordiality, and would not
permit him to return, because of another reve-
lation seen by them at night, which uttered the
clearest message to the most zealous among
them. For it made known that if they would
go outside the gates, they would receive the
bishop foreordained for them by God. And
having done this, with the unanimous consent
of the bishops of the neighboring churches,
3 they constrained him to remain. Alexan-
der, himself, in private letters to the Anti-
noites,'' which are still preserved among us,
mentions the joint episcopate of Narcissus and
himself, writing in these words at the end of the
epistle :
4 " Narcissus salutes you, who held the epis-
copate here before me, and is now associated
with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen
years of age ; and he exhorts you, as I do, to be
of one mind."
These things took place in this manner. But,
on the death of Serapion,^ Asclepiades,* who had
(note on this passage) and Tillemont {Hist, eccles. III. p. 415)
give Flaviopolis or Flqviadis as the name of the city (upon the
authority of Basilicon, Jur. Grixco-Rom. Tom. I. p. 295, accord-
ing to Tillemont). But Flaviopolis was a city of Cilicia, and hence
Tillemont conjectures that it had once been taken from Cappadocia
and attached to Cilicia, and that its inhabitants retained the memory
of Alexander, their early bishop. The report seems to rest upon a
very slender foundation; but not having access to the authority
cited, I am unable to form an opinion as to the worth of the tradition.
* 'AfTii'deia (Antinoe or Antinoopolis) was a city of Egypt
founded by Hadrian in honor of Antinous (see Bk. IV. chap. 8,
note 3). This is the first mention of a church there, but its bishops
were present at more than one council in later centuries (see
Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics, p. 59, 196, 473). This
letter must have been written between 212, at about which time
Alexander became Narcissus' coadjutor (see chap. 8, note 6), and
216, when Origen visited Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23). For at
the time of that visit Alexander is said to have been bishop of Jeru-
salem, and no mention is made of Narcissus, who must therefore
have been already dead (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note i). The frag-
ments of Alexander's epistles quoted in this chapter are given in
Routh's Rel. Sacne, II. p. 161 sq., and in English in the Ante-
Niceyie Fathers, VI. p. 154.
'' On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note i.
^ The Chron. puts the accession of Asclepiades in the first year
of Caracalla (211 a.d.). Harnack {Zeit des Ignatius, p. 47)
believes that this notice rests upon better knowledge than the notices
of most of the Antiochian bishops, because in this case the author
departs from the artificial scheme which he follows in the main.
But Harnack contends that the date is not quite correct, because
Alexander, who suffered under Severus, was still in prison when
Asclepiades became bishop, and therefore the latter's accession
must be put back into Severus' reign. He would fix, therefore,
upon about 209 as the date of it, rightly perceiving that there is
good reason for thinking the Chron. at least nearly correct in its
report, and that in any case his accession cannot be carried back
much beyond that, because it is quite probable (from the congratu-
lations which Alexander extends to the church of Antioch) that
there had been a vacancy in that church for some time after the death
of Serapion (a thing not at all unnatural in the midst of the perse-
cutions of the time), while Serapion was still alive as late as 203
(see Bk. V. chap, ig, note i). But it seems to me that there
is no good ground for making any alteration in the date given by
the Chron., for we know that at the very end of Severus' reign the
persecution broke out again with considerable severity, and that it
continued, at least in Africa, for some time after Caracalla's acces-
sion (see Tertullian's rtrf .?<-«/.). The general amnesty issued by
Caracalla after the murder of his brother Geta in 212 (see Dion
Cassius, LXXVII. 3) seems first to have put a definitive end to the
persecutions. There is therefore no ground for confining Alexan-
der's imprisonment to the reign of Severus. It may well have run
VOL. I.
been himself distinguished among the confessors ^
during the persecution, succeeded to the episco-
pate of the church at Antioch. Alexander al-
ludes to his appointment, writing thus to the
church at Antioch :
"Alexander, a servant and prisoner of Je- 5
sus Christ, to the blessed church of Antioch,
greeting in the Lord. The Lord hath made my
bonds during the time of my imprisonment light
and easy, since I learned that, by the Divine Provi-
dence, Asclepiades, who in regard to the true
faith is eminently qualified, has undertaken the
bishopric of your holy church at Antioch."
He indicates that he sent this epistle by 6
Clement,*^ writing toward its close as follows :
" My honored brethren,^ I have sent this letter
to you by Clement, the blessed presbyter, a man
virtuous and approved, whom ye yourselves also
know and will recognize. Being here, in the
providence and oversight of the Master, he has
strengthened and built up the Church of the
Lord."
CHAPTER Xn.
Serapion and his Extant Works.
It is probable that others have preserved 1
other memorials of Serapion's ^ literary in-
dustry,^ but there have reached us only those ad-
dressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time
of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to
the Jewish will-worship ; ^ and those addressed
into the time of Caracalla, and hence it is quite possible that Ascle-
piades did not become bishop until after the latter became emperor,
so that it is not necessary to correct the date of the Chron. It
is impossible to determine with certainty the length of Asclepia-
des' episcopate (see chap. 21, note 6). Of Asclepiades himself we
know no more than is told us in this chapter. He seems to have
been a man of most excellent character, to judge from Alexander's
epistle. That epistle, of course, was written immediately after
Asclepiades' appointment.
' Literally " confessions " (6;aoAoYiai5).
' On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11.
^ Kuptot )U.ov a5eA</>ot.
1 On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note i.
^ The Greek reads: toO £« Sapan-iwi'os rij? n-epl Adyous acTK^-
(7€a>9 Kat aWa. \Lkv et/co? a"a»^e(T0ai Trap' erepot? VTrOjUi'rjjU.aTa.
3 Of this Domninus we know only what is told us here. It is
suggested by Daniell (in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. IV. 630) that
this shows that the prohibition uttered by Severus against the Jews
" must have been soon relaxed, if it ever was enforced." But in re-
gard to this it must be said, in the first place, that Severus' decree
was not levelled against the Jews, but only against conversion to
Judaism, — against \k\c fieri, not the esse, Jtiditos. The object of
the edict was not to disturb the Jews in the exercise of their national
faith, but to prevent their proselyting among the non-Jewish resi-
dents of the empire. If Domninus, therefore, fell from Christianity
into Judaism on account of the persecution, it seems highly probable
that he was simply a converted Jew, who gave up now, in order to
avoid persecution, his new faith, and again practised the religion of
his fathers. Nothing, therefore, can be concluded from Domninus'
case as to the strictness with which Severus' law was carried out,
even if we suppose Domninus to have fallen from Christianity into
Judaism. But it must be remarked, in the second place, that it is
by no means certain that Eusebius means to say that Domninus fell
into Judaism, or became a Jew. He is said to have fallen into
" Jewish will-worship " (eKTrtTrTioKOTa etti rrji' 'Iov6ai/cr)i' efleAoflpj)-
(jKiiav). The word efleAoflprjo-fcei'a occurs for the first time in Col.
ii. 23, and means there an " arbitrary, self-imposed worship" (Elli-
cott), or a worship which one "affects" (Cremer). The word is
used there in connection with the Oriental theosophic and Juda-
istic errors which were creeping into the churches of Asia Minor at
the time the epistle was written, and it is quite possible that the
word may be used in the present case in reference to the same class
of errors. We know that these theosophizing and Judaizing tenden-
258
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 12.
was
that
of
to Pontius and Caricus/ ecclesiastical men,
2 and other letters to different persons, and
still another work composed by him on the
so-called Gospel of Peter.^ He wrote this last
to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel con-
tained, on account of some in the parish of
Rhossus^ who had been led astray by it into
heterodox notions. It may be well to give some
brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion
of the book. He writes as follows :
3 " For we, brethren, receive both Peter
and the other apostles as Christ ; but we
reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed
to them, knowing that such were not handed
4 down to us. When I visited you I supposed
that all of you held the true faith, and as I
had not read the Gospel which they put for-
ward under the name of Peter, I said, ' If this
is the only thing which occasions dispute among
you, let it be read.' But now having learned,
from what has been told me, that their mind
involved in some heresy, I will hasten to
come to you again. Therefore, brethren,
expect me shortly. But you will learn,
brethren, from what has been written to you,
we perceived the nature of the heresy
Marcianus,^ and that, not understanding
what he was saying, he contradicted himself.
6 For having obtained this Gospel from others
who had studied it diligently, namely, from
the successors of those who first used it, whom
we call Docetge* (for most of their opinions are
cies continued to exert considerable influence in Asia Minor aiid
Syria during the early centuries, and that the Ebionites and the El-
cesaites were not the only ones affected by them (see Harnack, Dpg^-
mengesch. I. 218 sq.). The lapse of any one into Ebionism, or into
a Judaizing Gnosticism, or similar form of heresy — a lapse which
cannot have been at all uncommon among the fanatical Phrygians
and other peoples of that section — might well be called a lapse into
" Jewish will-worship." We do not know where Dnmninus lived,
but it is not improb.able that Asia Minor was his home, and that he
may have fallen under the influence of Montanism as well as of E".bi-
onism and Judaizing Gnosticism. I suggest the possibility that his
lapse was into heresy rather than into Judaism pure and simple, for
the reason that it is easier, on that ground, to explain the fact that
Serapi<m addressed a work to him. He is known to us only as an
opponent of heresy, and it may be that Domninus' lapse gave him
an opportunity to attack the heretical notions of these Ebionites, or
other Judaizing heretics, as he had attacked the Montanists. It
seems to the writer, also, that it is thus easier to explain the complex
phrase used, which seems to imply something different from Juda-
ism pure and simple.
* See Bk. V. chap. 19, note 4.
'■ On the so-called " Gospel of Peter," see Bk. III. chap. 3,
note 7.
" Khossus, or Rhosus, was a city of Syria, lying on the Gulf of
Issus, a little to the northwest of Antioch.
' This Marcianus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless
we are to identify him, as Salmon suggests is possible, with Mar-
cion. The suggestion is attractive, and the reference to Doceiii-
gives it a show of probability. But there are serious objections to
be urged against it. In the first place, the form of the name, Mapxi-
ai'O? instead of Map/ci'ioi'. The two names are by no means identical.
Still, according to Harnack, we have more than once Map/ctai-oi and
MapKiai'to'Tai for MapKiuii'iffTai (see his Qiiclli'itkritil; li. Cesch. d.
Gnosticisinus, p. 31 sqq.). But again, how can Marcion have
used, or his name been in any way connected withj a Gospel of
Peter ? Finally, the imi)rcssion left by this passage is that " Mar-
cianus " was a man still living, or at any rate alive shortly before
Serapion wrote, for the latter seems only recently to have learned
what his doctrines were. He certainly cannot have been so igno-
rant of the teachings of the great " hcresiarch " Marcion. We must,
in fact, regard the identification as improbable.
" By Docctism we understand the doctrine that Christ had no
true body, but only an apparent one. The word is derived from
connected with the teaching of that school-'),
we have been able to read it through, and we
find many things in accordance with the true
doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added
to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for
you fartlier on."
So much in regard to Serapion.
CHAPTER XIII.
The Writings of Clement}
All the eight Stromata of Clement are 1
preserved among us, and have been given l)y
SoKcw, " to seem or appear." The belief is as old as the first cen-
tury (cf. I John iv. 2; 2 John 7), and was a favorite one with most
of the Gnostic sects. The name Docetie, however, as a general ap-
pellation for all those holding this opinion, seems to have been used
first by Theodorct {Ep. 82). But the term was employed to desig-
nate a particular sect before the end of the second centurj'; thus
Clement of Alexandria speaks of them in Strom. VII. 17, and Hip-
polytus {Phil. VIII. 8. 4, and X. 12; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer.
ed.), and it is evidently this particular sect to which Serapion refers
here. An examination of Hippolytus' account shows that these
DocctrF did not hold what we call IJocetic ideas of Christ's body; in
fact, Hippolytus says expressly that they taught that Christ was born,
and had a true body from the Virgin (see Phil. VIII. 3). How the
sect came to adopt the name of Docetie we cannot tell. They seem
to have disappeared entirely before the fourth century, for no mention
of.them is found in Epiphanius and other later heresiologists. As was
remarked above, Theodoret uses the term in a general sense and not
as the appellation of a particular sect, and this became the common
usage, and is still. Whether there was anything in the teaching of
the sect to suggest the belief that Christ had only an apparent body,
and thus to lead to the use of their specific name for all who held
that view, or whether the general use of the name Dccet<e arose
quite independently of the sect name, we do not know. The latter
seems more probable. The Docrtie referred to by Hippolytus being
a purely Gnostic sect with a belief in the reality of Christ's body,
we have no reason to conclude that the " Gospel of Peter " contained
what we call Docetic te.^ching. The description which .Serapion
gives of the gospel fits quite well a work containing some such
Gnostic speculations as Hippolytus describes, and thus adding to the
Gospel narrative rather than denying the truth of it in any part.
He could hardly have spoken as he did of a work which denied the
reality of Christ's body. See, on the general subject, Salmon's arti-
cles Docctie and Docctism in tlie Diet, pf Christ. Biog.
" The interpretation of these last two clauses is beset with difficulty.
The Greek reads roureo'Ti wapa. tu)1' SiaS6)^u>i' tmv KaTap^afiiyuiv
auToO, oi)? AoKT^Ta? KaKov^ev, (ra yap i^povqjxaja tol TrAtioi'a eKti-
vuiv etrrt rij? StSatrKaAia?), k.t.\. The words Tioi' KaTap^ajutrtoi'
ouToO are usually tr.anslated " who preceded him," or " who led the
way before him"; but the phrase hardly seems to admit of this in-
terpretation, and moreover the ai'iToO seems to refer not to Marci-
anus, whose name occurs some lines back, but to the gospel whii :h
has just been mentioned. There is a ditTiculty also in regard to the
reference of the tVeiVuji', which is commonly connected with the
words T^? St.Sa(TKa\ia^, but which seems to belong rather with the
<l>poi'rinaTa and to refer to the SiaSoxiov riuf KaTap^a/itrcoi'. It thus
seems necessary to define the TJj? &iSacrKa\ia^ more closely, and wo
therefore venture, with Closs, to insert the words " of that school,"
referring to the Ih'ccttc just mentioned.
' On the life of Clement, sec Bk. V. chap. 11, note i. He was a
very prolific writer, as we can gather from the list of works men-
tioned in this chapter. The list is repeated by Jerome (</<■ rvV. ///.
c. 38) and by Photius {Cflii. 109-111), the former of whom merely
copies from Eusebius, with some mistakes, while the latter copies
from Jerome, as is clear from the similar variations in the titles given
by the last two from those given by Eusebius, and also by the
omission in both their lists of one work named by Eusebius (see
below, note 10). iMisebius names ten works in tliis chapter. In
adililion to these tliere are extant two quotations from a work of
Clement entitled Trtpl Trpoi'oia?. There are also extant two fr.ig-
ments of a work irtpi i/(ii\7;<;. In the lustriicior, I'k. II. chap. 10,
Clement refers to a work On Continence (6 n-epl e-y//cpaTnn>;) as al-
ready written Iiy himself, and there is no reason to doubt that this
was a separate work, for the third book of the Stromata (to which
Fabricius thinks he refers), which treats of the same subject, was
not yet written. The work is no longer extant. In the Imtriictor,
I'.k. III. chap. 8, Clement speaks of a work which he had written On
Marriage (0 ya/jiiKd? Aoyns). It has been thought possible that he
may have referred here to his discussion of the same subject in Bk.
II. chap. U) of the same work (see the Bishop of I.iii'- ilii's work on
Clement, p. 7), but it seems more prob.ible lli.U he relerred to a scp-
VI. 13.]
THE WRITINGS OF CLEMENT.
259
him the following title : " Titus Flavius Clement's
Stromata of Gnostic Notes on the True Phi-
2 losophy." - The books entitled Hypotyposes''
arate work now lost. Potter, p. 1022, gives a fragment which is
possibly from this work.
In addition to these works, referred to as already written, Clem-
ent promises to write on J-'irst Principles (jrepi apvui'; Strom.
III. 3, IV. I, 13, V. 14, ei al.) : on rrophecy {Strom. I. 24, IV. 13,
V. 13); on Aiigi'ls {Strom. VI. 13); on the Ori.^in 0/ the Il'orM
{.Strom. VI. 18), — perhaps a part of the proposed work on First
Principles, ancl perhaps to be identified with the conmientary on
Genesis, referred to below by Eusebins (see note 28), — Against
Heresies {Strom. IV. 13), on tlic Resurrection {Instructor, I. 6,
II. 10). It is quite jiossible that Clement regarded his promises as
fulfilled by the discussions which he gives in various parts of the
Stromata themselves, or that he gave up his original purpose.
- Clement's tiiree principal works, the K.xhortation to the
Greeks (see below, note 5), the htstructor (note 6), and the Stro-
tnata, form a connected series of works, related to one another (as
SchatT says) very much as apologetics, ethics, and dogniiitics. The
three works were composed in the order named. The Stromata
{'^TpMixaTti<;) or Misee/ta I.' ies (said by Eusebins in this passage to
bear the title nii" Kara. T>y.' aAijfJJ) </)iAo(roc/>iai' yrwo-TiKwr u7rofi.>'>)-
(iiaTioi' cTTpcDiuaTei?) are said by Eusebins and by Photius {Cod. 109)
to consist of eight books. Only seven are now extant, although
there exists a fragment purporting to be a part of the eighth book,
but which is in reality a portion of a treatise on logic, while in the
time of Photius some reckoned the tract Quis iii7ies sak'etur as the
eighth book (Photius, Cod. in). There thus exists no uniform tra-
dition as to the character of the lost book, and the suggestion of
Westcott seems plausible, that at an early date the logical introdvic-
tion to the I/ypotyposes was separated from the remainder of the
work, and added to some MSS. of the Stromata as an eighth book.
If this be true, the Stromata consisted originally of only seven books,
and hence we now have the whole work (with the exception of a
fragment lost at the beginning). The name ^TptuAiartt?, "patch-
work," sufficiently indicates the character of the work. It is with-
out methodical arrangement, containing a heterogeneous mixture of
science, philosophy, poetry, and theology, and yet is animated by
one idea throughout, — that Christianity satisfies the highest intel-
lectual desires of man, — and hence the work is intended in some sense
as a guide to the deeper knowledge of Christianity, the knowledge
to be sought after by tlie" true Cuostic." It is full of rich thoughts
mingled with worthless crudities, and, like nearly all of Clement's
works, abounds in wide and varied learning, not always fully di-
gested. The date at which the work was composed may be gath-
ered from a passage in Bk. I. chap. 21, where a list of the Roman
emperors is closed with a mention of Commodus, the exact length
of whose reign is given, showing that he was already dead, but also
showing apparently that his successor was still living. This would
lead us to put the composition at least of the first book in the first
quarter of the year 193. It might of course be said that Pertinax
and Didius Julianus are omitted in this list because of the brevity
of their reigns, and this is possible, since in his own list he gives the
reigns of the emperors simply by years, omitting Otho and Vitellius.
The other list v/hich he quotes, however, gives every emperor, with
the number of years, months, and even days of each reign, so tliat
there is no reason, at least in that list, for the omission of Pertinax
and Didius Julianus. It seems probable that, under the influence
of that exact list, and of the recentness of the reigns of the two
emperors named, Clement can hardly have omitted them if they had
already ruled. We can say with absolute certainty, liovvever, only
that the work was written after 192. Clement left Alexandria in
202, or before, and this, as well as the rest of his works, was written
in all probability before that time at the latest.
The standard edition of Clement's works is that of Potter, Oxford,
1715, in two vols, (reprinted in Migne's Patr. Gr., Vols. VIII. and
IX.). Complete English translation in 'Cne. Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Amer. ed.. Vol. II. On his writings, see especially Westcott's article
in the Diet, of Clirist. Biog. and for the literature on the subject,
Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. 781.
3 The Hypotyposes (un-oTi/Trujcreis), or Outlines (Euseblus calls
them ot cTTtyeypa/ixfAei'Ot i/iroTUTruJcretoi' avTOv Adyot),are no longer
extant, though fragments have been preserved. The work (which
was in eight books, according to this passage) is referred to by
Eusebius, in Bk. I. chap. 12 (the fifth book), in Bk. II. chap, i (the
sixth and seventh books), in Bk. II. chaps. 9 and 23 (the seventh
book), chap. 15 (the sixth book), in Bk. V. chap. 11, and in Bk. VI.
chap. 14 (the book not specified). Most of these extracts are of a
historical character, but have to do (most of them, not all) with the
apostolic age, or the New Testament. We are told in chap. 14 that
the work contained abridged accounts of all the Scriptures, but
Photius {Cod. 109) says that it seems to have dealt only with (Gene-
sis, Exodus, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, the epistles of Paul, and the
Catholic epistles (6 6e oAo? (Tkotto? cotrai'tl cp/ixTji'eiai Tuy^aroi/iTt ri)?
reye'creu)? k.t.A.). Besides the detached quotations there are extant
three series of extracts which are supposed to have been taken from
the Hypotyposes. These are The Summaries from Theodotus,
Tlie Prophetic Selections, and the Outlines on the Catholic Epis-
tles. On these fragments, which are very corrupt and desultory, see
Westcott in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. They discuss all sorts of
doctrines, and contain the interpretations of the most various
schools, and it is not always clearly stated whether Clement himself
are of the same number. In them he men-
tions Pantaenus'* by name as his teacher, and
gives his opinions and traditions. Besides 3
these there is his Hortatory Discourse
addressed to the Greeks ; '" three books of a
work entitled the Instructor ; " another with the
title What Rich Man is Saved?' the work on
the Passover ; ^ discussions on Fasting and on
Evil Speaking ; '* the Hortatory Discourse on
Patience, or To Those Recently liaptized ; ^° and
the one bearing the title I'^cclesiastical Canon,
or Against the Judaizers," which he dedicated
adopts the opinion given, or whether he is simply quoting from
another for the purpose of refuting him. Photius condemns parts of
the Hypotyf'oses severely, but it seems, from these extracts which we
liave, that he may have read the work, full as it was of the heretical
ojiinions of otlicr men and schools, without distinguishing Clement's
own opinions from those of others, and that thus he may carelessly
have attributed to him all the wild notions which he mentions.
These extracts as well as the various references of Eusebius show
that the work, like most of the others which Clement wrote, covered
a great deal of ground, and included discussions of a great many
collateral subjects. It does not seem, in fact, to have been much
more systematic than the Instructor or even the Stromata. It
seems to have been intended as a part of the great series, of which
the Exhortation, Instructor, and .Stromata were the first three.
If so, it followed them. We have no means of ascertaining its date
more exactly.
■• On Pantsenus, see above, Bk. V. chap. lo, note i.
'' The E.rhortation to the Greeks (6 Aoyos TrpoTpfjr-TiKb? n-pos
"EAAijra?), the first of the series of three works mentioned in note 2,
is still extant in its entirety. It is called by Jerome {de vir. ill.
chap. 38) Adversus Gentes, liber nnus, but, as Westcott remarks,
it was addressed not to the Gentiles in general, but to the Greeks, as
its title and its contents alike indicate. The general aim of the book
is to " prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and
pliilosophies of heathendom," and thus to lead the unbeliever to
accept it. It is full of Greek mythology and speculation, and exhibits,
as Schalif says, almost a waste of learning. It was written before
the Instructor, as we learn from a reference to it in the latter
(chap. i). It is stated above (Bk. V. chap. 28, § 4), by the anony-
mous writer against the Artemonites, that Clement wrote (at least
some of his works) before the time of Victor of Rome (i.e. before
192 A. D.), and hence Westcott concludes that this work was written
about 190, which cannot be far out of the way.
•^ The Instructor (o TraiiSoywyd?, or, as Eusebius calls it here,
Tpeis T6 01 70V i-niytypafxixivuv jraiSayiuyoO), is likewise extant, in
three books. The work is chiefly of a moral and practical character,
designed to furnish the new convert with rules for the proper conduct
of his life over against the prevailing immoralities of the heathen.
Its date is approximately fixed by the fact that it was written after the
Exhortation to which it refers, and before the Stromata, which
refers to it (see Strom. VI. i).
' The Quis Dives Salvetur ? as it is called (ti? 6 o-w^oyotecos
7rAou(7i05), is a brief tract, discussing the words of Christ in Mark x.
17 sqq. It is still extant, and contains the beautiful story of John
and the robber, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 23. It is an
eloquent and able work; and when compared with the prevailing
notions of the Church of his d.ay, its teaching is remarkably wise and
temperate. It is moderately ascetic, but goes to no extremes, and
in this furnishes a pleasing contrast to the writings of most of the
Fathers of Clement's time.
' TO Trepi ToO TtacTxa. avyypafjifjia. This work is no longer extant,
nor had Photius seen it, although he reports that he had heard of it.
Two fragments of it are found in the Chronicon Paschale, and are
given by Potter. The work was composed, according to § 9, below,
at the instigation of friends, who urged him to commit to writing
the traditions which he had received from the ancient presbyters.
From Bk. IV. chap. 26, we learn that it was written in reply to
Melito's work on the same subject (see notes 5 and 23 on that chap-
ter) ; and hence we may conclude that it was undertaken at the
solicitation of friends who desired to see the arguments presented by
Melito, as a representative of the Quartodeciman practice, refuted.
The date of the work we have no means of ascertaining, for Melito's
work was written early in the sixties (see Hid.).
'■> ^laAe'^ti? Trepl crjcTTeia; Kal jrepl KaraAaAia?. Photius knew
both these works by report (the second under the title Trtpl KaxoAo-
yia?), but had not seen them. Jerome calls the first de jejunio
disceptatio, the second de obtrectatione liber nnus. Neither of
them is now extant; but fragments of the second have been pre-
served, and are given by Potter.
^^ 6 /rpoTpeTTTtKo? ei? viroixovrji' 7) Trpos T0U9 j'eojo'Tt ^e^aTTTKTfL^-
i'ou9. This work is mentioned neither by Jerome nor by Photius,
nor has any vestige of it been preserved, so far as we know.
1^ 6 eTTtyeypajUp-eVo? Kai'iou eKKAT/o'tao'TtKO?, rj 7rp6? T0U9 loufiat-
^oi'Tac. Jerome: de canonibus ecclesiasticis, et adversiim eos,
qui Judieorum sequutitur errorutn. Photius mentions the work,
calling it Trcpl Kaviiviav iKKKriaiatrTiKMy, but he had not himself seen
S 2
26o
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. i;
to Alexander, the bishop mentioned above.
4 In the Stromata, he has not only treated
extensively '" of the Divine Scripture, but he
also quotes from the Greek writers whenever any-
thing that they have said seems to him profitable.
He elucidates the opinions of many, both
5 Greeks and barbarians. He also refutes the
false doctrines of the heresiarchs, and besides
this, reviews a large portion of history, giving us
specimens of very various learning ; with all the
rest he mingles the views of philosophers. It is
likely that on this account he gave his work the
appropriate title of Stromata.'^
6 He makes use also in these works of testi-
monies from the disputed Scriptures," the
so-called Wisdom of Solomon/'^ and of Jesus,
the son of Sirach, and the Epistle to the He-
brews,^" and those of Barnabas,^'^ and Clement ^^
it. It is no longer extant, but a few fragments have been preserved,
and are given by Potter.
Danz {De Eiisehio, p. qo) refers to Clement's Stromata, lib. VI.
p. 803, ed. Potter, where ne says that " the ecclesiastical canon is
the agreement or disagreement of the law and the prophets with the
testament given at the coming of Christ." Danz concludes accord-
ingly that in this work Clement wished to show to those who be-
lieved that the teaching of the law and the prophets was not only
different from, but superior to the teachings of the Christian faith,
— that is, to the Judaizers, — that the writers of the Old and New
Testaments were in full harmony. This might do, were it not for
the fact that the work is directed not against Jews, but against Juda-
izers, i.e. Judaizing Christians. A work to prove the Old and New
Testament in harmony with each other could hardly have been ad-
dressed to such persons, ho must have believed them in harmony
before they became Christians. The truth is, the phrase Kai'wi'
«KicAj)<Ttaa-Tiic6? is used by the Fathers with a great variety of mean-
ings, and the fact that Clement used it in one sense in one of his
works by no means proves that he always used it in the same sense.
It is more probable that the work was devoted to a discussion of
certain practices or modes of living in which the Judaizers differed
from the rest of the Church Catholic, perhaps in respect to feasts
(might a reference to the Quartodeciman practice have been perhaps
included?), fasts and other ascetic practices, observance of the Jew-
ish Sabbaths, &c. This use of the word in the sense of regiiia was
very common (see Suicer's Thesaurus). The work was dedicated,
according to Eusebius, to the bishop Alexander, mentioned above in
chap. 8 and elsewhere. This is sufficient evidence that it was writ-
ten considerably later than the three great works already referred to.
Alexander was a student of Clement's; and since he was likewise a
fellow-pupil of Origen's (see chap. 8, note 6), his student days under
Clement must have extended at least nearly to the time when Clem-
ent left Alexandria (i.e. in or before 202 a.d.). But Clement of
course cannot have dedicated a work to him while he was still his
pupil, and in fact we shall be safe in saying that Alexander must
nave gained some prominence before Clement would be led to dedi-
cate a work to him. We think naturally of the period which Clem-
ent spent with him while he was in prison and before he became
bishop of Jerusalem (see chap. 11). It is quite possible that Clem-
ent's residence in Cappadocia with Alexander had given him such
an acquaintance with Judaizing heresies and practices that he felt
constrained to write against them, and at the same time had given
him such an affection for Alexander that he dedicated his work to
him.
" Literally, "made a spreading" {KardarpuxTiv TrenoirjTai) .
Eusebius here plays upon the title of the work (^Tpai/j-arfW) .
■* See note 2.
'* oLi-TtAtyontVwi/ ypaijiuiv. On the Anti'Ugomena, see Bk. III.
chap. 25, note i.
"< The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach were two
Old Testament apocryphal books. The Church of the first three
centuries made, on the whole, no essential difference between the
books of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha. We find the Fathers,
almost without exception, quoting from both indiscriminately. It is
true that catalogues were made by Melito, Origen, Athanasius, and
others, which separated the Apocrypha from the books of the He-
brew canon; but this represented theory simply, not practice, and
did not prevent even them.sclvcs from using both classes as Scrip-
ture. Augustine went so far as to obliterate completely all distinc-
tion between the two, in theory as well as in practice. The only one
of the early Fathers to make a decided stand against the Apocrypha
was Jerome; but he was not able to change the common view, and
the Church continued (as the Catholic Church continues still) to use
them all (with a few minor exceptions) as Holy Scripture.
"' On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. HI. chap. 3, note 17.
" On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk, HI. chap. 25, note 20.
and Jude.'^ He mentions also Tatian's-" 7
Discourse to the Greeks, and speaks of Cas-
sianus-^ as the author of a chronological work.
He refers to the Jewish authors Philo," Aristobu-
lus,-" Josephus,-'' Demetrius,-^ and Eupolemus,""
as showing, all of them, in their works, that
Moses and the Jewish race existed before
the earliest origin of the Greeks. These 8
books abound also in much otlier learning.
In the first of them-^ the author speaks of him-
1" On the Epistle of Clement, see Bk. III. chap. i6, note i.
''■' On the Epistle of Jude, see Bk. II. chap. 23, note
-" On Tatian and his works, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note i.
"' This Cassianus is mentioned twice by Clement: once in S/rfi;i.
I. 21, where Clement engages in a chronological study for the pur-
pose of showing that the wisdom of the Hebrews is older than that
of the Greeks, and refers to Cassian's Exegetica and Tatian's Ad-
dress to the Greeks as containing discussions of the same subject;
again m Strom. HI. i3sqq., where he is said to have been the founder
of the sect of the Doccttp, and to have written a work, De cotithieii-
tia or De castitate (ffpt tyxpaTiia^ r) wepi eurouxia;), in which he
condemned marriage. Here, too, he is associated with Tatian. He
seems from these references to have been, like Tatian, an apologist
for Christianity, and also like him to have gone off into an extreme
asceticism, which the Church pronounced heretical (see Bk. IV.
chap. 29, note 4). Whether he was personally connected with Ta-
tian, or is mentioned with him by Clement simply because his views
were similar, we do not know, nor can we fix the date at which he
lived. Neither of his works referred to by Clement is now extant.
Jerome (^de vir. HI. chap. 38) mentions the work which Eusebius
speaks of here, but says that he had not been .able to find a copy of it.
It is called by Clement, in the passage referred to here by Eusebius,
'Ef>)yr)TtKo'i, and so Eusebius calls it in his Prepf. Evang. X. 12,
where he quotes from Clement. But here he speaks of it as a xpo-
i'OYpac|)ia, and Jerome transcribes the word without translating it.
We can gather from Clement's words {Strom. I. 21) that the work
of Cassianus dealt largely with chronology, and hence Eusebius'
reference to it under the name _\poi'iiypa'|)i.'a is quite legitimate.
-- On Philo and his works, see Bk. II. chaps. 4, 5, 17 and 18.
-^ The Aristobulus referred to here was an Alexandrian Jew
and Peripatetic philosopher (see the passages in Clement and Euse-
bius referred to below), who lived in the second century B.C., and
was the author of Commentaries itpon the Mosaic Law, the chief
object of which was to prove that (Jreek philosophy was borrowed
from the books of Moses (see Clement, Strom. V. 14, who refers
only to Peripatetic philosophy, which is too narrow). The work is
referred to by Clement of Alexandria (in his Stromata, I. 15; V.
14; VI. 3, &c.), by Eusebius (in his Priep. Evang. VII. 14; VIII.
p, 10; XIII. 12, &c.), by Anatolius (as quoted by Eusebius below,
in Bk. VII. chap. 32), and by other Fathers. The work is no longer
extant, but Eusebius gives two considerable fragments of it in his
Prcep. Evang. VIII. 10, and XIII. 12. See Schiirer's Gesch. d.
jiidischen I'olkes im Zeitalter Jesii, II. p. 760 sq. Schiirer main-
tains the authenticity of the work against the attacks of many mod-
ern critics.
^^ On Josephus and his works, see Bk. III. chap. 9.
-^ Demetrius was a Grecian Jew, who wrote, toward the close
of the third century B.C., a History 0/ Israel, based upon the Scrip-
ture records, and with especial reference to chronology. Demetrius
is mentioned by Josephus (who, however, wrongly makes him a
heathen; cotttra W/Zcwcw, I. 23), by Clement of Alexandria, and
by Eusebius. His work is no longer extant, but fragments of it are
preserved by Clement {Strom. I. 21) and by Eusebius {Pnrp.
Evaiig. IX. 21 and 29). See Schiirer, ibid. p. 730 sq.
-'' Eupolymus was also a Jewish historian, who wrote about the
middle of the second century B.C., and is possibly to be identified
with the Eupolymus mentioned in i. Mace. viii. 17. He wrote a
History of the Je-ivs, which is referred to under various titles by
those that mention it, and which has consequently been resolved
into three separate works by many scholars, but without warrant,
as Schiirer has shown. The work, like that of Aristobulus, was
clearly designed to show the dependence of Greek philosophy upon
Hebrew wisdom (see Clement's Strom. I. 23). It is no longer
extant, but fragments have been preserved by Clement of Alexan-
dria {Strom. 1. 21, which gives us data for reckcming the time at
which Eupolymus wrote, and I. 23) and by Eusebius {Prap. Evaiig.
IX. 17, 26, 30-34, and prob.ably 39). See Schiirer, ibid. p. 732 sq.
-' Eusebius is apparently still referring to Clement's Stromata.
In saying that Clement lov tr tuI TrpaJrw irtpc tai/Toy fiijAot oj? cYytcTTa
Ti;? Tojr d7rO(7T(iA(i>i' yei'o/Lttrov fiiaSo;^?}?, he was perhaps thinking of
the passage in Sirom. I. i, where Clement says, "They [i.e. his
teachers], preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine, derived
directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the
sons receiving it from the fathers (but few were like the fathers),
came by God's will to iis also to deposit those ancestral and apos-
tolic seeds." Clement in this passage does not mean to assert that
his teachers were immediate disciples of the n]i(istles, but only that
they received the traditions of the apostles in direct descent from
VI. 14.]
THE SCRIPTURES MENTIONED BY CLEMENT.
261
self as next after the successors of the apostles.
In them he promises also to write a com-
9 mentary on Genesis.^ In his book on the
Passover-"^ he acknowledges that he had
been urged by his friends to commit to writ-
ing, for posterity, the traditions which he had
heard from the ancient presbyters ; and in the
same work he mentions Melito and Irenaeus,
and certain others, and gives extracts from their
writings.
CHAPTER XIV.
The Scriptures mentioned by him.
1 To sum up briefly, he has given in the
Hypotyposes^ abridged accounts of all
canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed
books, ^ — I refer to Jude and the other Catho-
lic epistles, and Barnabas^ and the so-
2 called Apocalypse of Peter.* He says that
the Epistle to the Hebrews ^ is the work of
Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in
the Hebrew language ; but that Luke translated
it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and
hence the same style of expression is found
3 in this epistle and in the Acts. But he says
that the words, Paul the Apostle, were prob-
ably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the
Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious
of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at
the very beginning by giving his name.
4 Farther on he says : " But now, as the
blessed presbyter said, since the Lord be-
ing the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the
Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on ac-
count of his modesty did not subscribe himself
an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for
the Lord, and because being a herald and apos-
tle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out
of his superabundance."
5 Again, in the same books, Clement gives
the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as
to the order of the Gospels, in the following
manner : The Gospels containing the gene-
6 alogies, he says, were written first. The
their immediate disciples. Eusebius' words are a little ambiguous,
but they seem to imply that he thought that Clement was a pupil of
immediate disciples of the apostles, which Clement does not assert
in this passage, and can hardly have asserted in any passage, for he
was in all probability born too late to converse with those who
had seen any of the apostles.
-^ In his Stroinata (VI. 18) Clement refers to a work on the
origin of the world, which was probably to form a part of his work
On Principles. This is perhaps the reference of which Eusebius
is thinking when he says that Clement in the Stromaia promises
6ts Tr)>/ Vivifnv vnoiJLvrifj.aTifl(T6ei.v. If so, Eusebius' words, which
imply that Clement promised to write a commentary on Genesis,
are misleading.
2" On this work, see note 8.
* See the previous chapter, note 3.
- On the A niiUgoiuciia of Eusebius, and on the New Testament
canon in general, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note i.
^ On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.
* On the Apocalypse of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 9.
^ On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. cnap. 3,
note 17.
Gospel according to Mark^ had this occasion.
As Peter had preached the Word publicly at
Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit,
many who were present requested that Mark,
who had followed him for a long time and re-
membered his sayings, should write them out.
And having composed the Gospel he gave
it to those who had requested it. When 7
Peter learned of this, he neither directly for-
bade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John,
perceiving that the external ^ facts had been made
plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends,
and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual
Gospel.*^ This is the account of Clement.
Again the above-mentioned Alexander,^ 8
in a certain letter to Origen, refers to Clem-
ent, and at the same time to Pantsenus, as being
among his familiar acquaintances. He writes
as follows :
" For this, as thou knowest, was the will of
God, that the ancestral friendship existing be-
tween us should remain unshaken ; nay,
rather should be warmer and stronger. For 9
we know well those blessed fathers who
have trodden the way before us, with whom we
shall soon be ; ^^ Pantaenus, the truly blessed
man and master, and the holy Clement, my mas-
ter and benefactor, and if there is any other like
them, through whom I became acquainted with
thee, the best in everything, my master and
brother." "
So much for these matters. But Adaman- 10
tius,^- — for this also was a name of Origen,
— when Zephyrinus ^^ was bishop of Rome, visited
" On the composition of the Gospel of Mark, see Bk. II. chap.
15, note 4, and with this statement of Clement as to Peter's atti-
tude toward its composition, compare the words of Eusebius in § 2
of that chapter, and see the note upon the passage (note 5).
' Ta truiixariKa. 8 gee Bk. III. chap. 24, note 7.
'■> Mentioned already in chaps. 8 and 11.
w We see from this sentence that at the time of the writing of
this epistle both Pantaenus and Clement were dead. The latter was
still alive when Alexander wrote to the Antiochenes (see chap. 11),
i.e. about the year 211 (see note 5 on that chapter). How much
longer he lived we cannot tell. The epistle referred to here must
of course have been written at any rate subsequent to the year 211,
and hence while Alexander was bishop of Jerusalem. The expres-
sion " with whom we shall soon be " (jrpb? ou9 ner' oKiyov ia6fj.t9a.)
seems to imply that the epistle was written when Alexander and
Origen were advanced in life, but this cannot be pressed.
11 It is from this passage that we gather that Alexander was a
student of Clement's and a fellow-pupil of Origen's (see chap. 8,
note 6, and chap. 2, note i). The epistle does not state this directly,
but the conclusion seems sufficiently obvious.
^- The name Adamantius ('A6a;aai'Ttos from aSifia^ uncott-
querable, hence hard, adamatitine) is said by Jerome {Ep. ad
Paulam, § 3; Migne's ed. Ep. XXXIII.) to have been given him
on account of his untiring industry, by Photius (^Cod. 118) on account
of the invincible force of his arguments, and by Epiphanius {ffter.
LXIV. 74) to have been vainly adopted by himself. But Eusebius'
simple statement at this point looks rather as if Adaviaiititts was a
second name which belonged to Origen from the beginning, and had
no reference to his character. We know that two names were very
common in that age. This opinion is adopted by Tillemont, Rede-
penning, Westcott, and others, although many still hold the opposite
view. Another name, Chalcenterus, given to him by Jerome in the
epistle already referred to, was undoubtedly, as ve can see from the
context, applied to him by Jerome, because of his resemblance to
Didymus of Alexandria (who bore that surname) in his immense
industry as an author.
•3 On Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.
He was bishop from about 198, or 199, to 217. This gives consid-
erable range for the date of Origen's visit to Rome, which we have
no means of fixing with exactness. There is no reason for supposing
262
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 14.
Rome, "desiring," as he himself somewhere
says, "to see the most ancient church of Rome."
After a short stay there he returned to
11 Alexandria. And he performed the duties
of catechetical instruction there with great
zeal ; Demetrius, who was bishop there at that
time, urging and even entreating him to work
diligently for the benefit of the brethren.^*
CHAPTER XV.
Heradas}
But when he saw that he had not time for
the deeper study of divine things, and for the
investigation and interpretation of the Sacred
Scriptures, and also for the instruction of those
who came to him, — for coming, one after
another, from morning till evening to be taught
by him, they scarcely gave him time to breathe,
— he divided the multitude. And from those
whom he knew well, he selected Heraclas, who
was a zealous student of divine things, and in
other respects a very learned man, not igno-
rant of philosophy, and made him his asso-
ciate in the work of instruction. He entrusted
to him the elementary training of beginners,
but reserved for himself the teaching of those
who were farther advanced.
CHAPTER XVI.
Origeti's Earnest Study of the Divine Scriptures.
1 So earnest and assiduous was Origen's
research into the divine words that he
learned the Hebrew language,' and procured as
his own the original Hebrew Scriptures which
were in the hands of the Jews. He investigated
also the works of other translators of the Sacred
Scriptures besides the Seventy." And in addi-
tion to the well-known translations of Aquila,"
Syinmachus,* and Theodotion,^ he discovered
certain others which had been concealed from
remote times, — in what out-of-the-way cor-
ners I know not, — and by his search he
brought them to light.® Since he did not 2
that Eusebius is incorrect in putting it among the events occurring
during Caracalla's reign (211-217). O" 'he other Hand, it nuist
have taken place before the year 216, for in that year Origen went
to Palestine (see chap, ig, note 23) and remained there some time.
Whether Origen's visit was undertaken simply from the desire to see
the church of Rome, as Eusebius says, or in connection with matters
of business, we cannot tell.
1* On Demetrius' relations to Origen, see chap. 8, note 4.
1 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
' Origen's study of the Hebrew, which, according to Jerome {de
vir. ill. chap. 54), was " contrary to the custom of his day and race,"
is not at all surprising. He felt that he needed some knowled;;e of
it as a basis for his study of the Scriptures to which he had devoted
himself, and also as a means of comparing the Hebrew and Greek
texts of the Old Testament, a labor which he regarded as very impor-
tant for polemical purposes. As to his familiarity with the Hebrew it
is now universally conceded that it was by no means so great as was
formerly supposed. He seems to have learned only about enough
to enable him to identify the Hebrew which corresponded with the
Greek texts which he used, and even in this he often makes mistakes.
He sometimes confesses openly his lack of critical and independent
knowledge of the Hebrew (e.g. Horn, in Num. XIV. i ; XVI. 4).
He often makes blunders which seem absurd, and yet in many cases
he shows considerable knowledge in regard to peculiar forms and
idioms. His Hebrew learning was clearly fragmentary, and ac-
quired from various sources. Cf. Redepenning, I. p. 365 sq.
2 On the LXX, sec Uk. V. chap. 8, note 31.
' Aquila is first mentioned by Irenaeus {Adv. Hcer. HI. 21.
I, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 8, above), who calls him a
Jewish proselyte of Pontus; Epiphanius says of Sinope in Pontus.
Tradition is uniform that he was a Jewish proselyte, and that he
lived in the time of Hadrian, or in the early part of the second cen-
tury according to Rabbinic tradition. He produced a Greek trans-
lation of the Old Testament, which was very slavish in its adherence
to the original, sacrificing the Greek idiom to the Hebrew without
mercy, and even violating the grammatical structure of the former
for the sake of reproducing the exact form of the latter. Because
of its faithfulness to the original, it was highly prized by the Rab-
binic authorities, and became more popular among the Jews in gen-
eral than the LXX. (On the causes of the waning popularity of the
latter, see note 8, below.) Neither Aquila's version, nor the two
following, are now e.\tant; but numerous fragments have been pre-
served by those Fathers who saw and used Origen's Hexapla.
■• Symmachus is said by Eusebius, in the ne.\t chapter, to have
been an Ebionite; and Jerome agrees with him {Coiniiient. in Hab.,
lib. II. c. 3), though the testimony of the latter is weakened by the
fact that he wrongly makes Theodotion also an Ebionite (see ne,\t
note). It has been claimed that Symmachus was a Jew, not a
Christian; but Eusebius' direct statement is too strong to be set
aside, and is corroborated by certain indications in the version itself,
e.g. in Dan. ix. 26, where the word xP'O'tos, which Aquila avoids,
is used. The composition of his version is assigned by Epiphanius
and the Chron. paschale to the reign of Septimius Severus (193-
211); and although not much reliance is to be placed upon their
statements, still they must be about right in this case, for that
Symmachus' version is younger than Irenaeus is rendered highly
probable by the hater's omission of it where he refers to those of
Tlicodotion and Aquila; and, on the other hand, it must of course
have been composed before Origen began his He.va/'la. Symma-
chus' version is distinguished from Aquila's by the purity of its
Greek and its freedom from Hebraisms. The author's effort was
not slavishly to reproduce the original, but to make an elegant and
idiomatic Greek translation, and in this he succeeded very well,
being excellently versed in both languages, though he sometimes
sacrificed the exact sense of the Hebrew, and occasionally altered it
under the influence of dogmatic prepossessions. The version is
spoken very highly of by Jerome, and was used freely by him in
the composition of the Vulgate. For further particulars in regard
to Symmachus' version, see the Diet, of Christ. Biog. III. p. ig sq.
f' It has been disputed whether Theodotion was a Jew or a Chris-
tian. Jerome {dcrir. ill. 54, and elsewhere) calls him an Ebionite;
in his Ep. ad Aiigiistin. c. 19 (Migne's ed. Ep. 112), a Jew; while
in the preface to his commentary on Daniel he says that some called
hiTU an Ebionite, qui nltero gcncrc Judiein: est. Irenaeus {Adv.
I/u-r. III. 21. i) and Epiphanius {de iiirns. ct pond. 17) say that
he was a Jewish proselyte, which is probably true. The reports in
regard to his nationality are conflicting. The time at which he
lived is disputed. The Chron. paschale assigns liim to the reign of
Commodus, and Epiphanius may also be urged in support of that
date, though he commits a serious blunder in making a second Com-
modus, and is thus led into great confusion. But Theodotion, as
well as Aquila, is mentioned by Irenaeus, and hence iruist be pushed
back well into the second century. It has been discovered, too, that
Hennas used his version (see Hort's article in the Johns Hopkins
U>iivcrsity Circnlar, December, 1S84), which obliges us to throw
it back still further, and Schiirer has adduced some very strong
reasons for believing it older than Aquila's version (sec Schiirer's
Gesch. d. Jnden itn Zeitaltcr "jfcsii, II. p. 709). Theodotion's
version, like Aquila's, was intended lo reproduce the Hebrew more
exactly than the LXX did. It is based upon the LXX, however,
which it corrects by the Hebrew, and therefore resembles the former
much more closely than Theodotion's does. We have no notices of
the use of tliis version by the Jews. Aquila's version (supposing it
yoimger than Theodotion's) seems to have superseded it entirely.
Theodotion's translation of Daniel, however, was accepted by the
Christians, instead of the LXX Daniel, and replacing the latter in
all the MSS. of the LXX, has been preserved entire. Aside from
this we have only such fragments as have been preserved by the
Fathers that saw and used the Ilc.xapla. It will be .seen that the
order in which Eusebius mentions the three versions here is not
chronological. He simply follows the order in which they stand in
Origen's Hexapla (see below, note 8). Epiphanius is led by that
order to make Theodotion's version later than the other, which is
(juite a mistake, as has been seen.
For fiuther particulars in regard to the versions of Aquila and
Theodotion, and for the literature of the subject, see Schiirer, ibid.
p. 704 sq.
" We know very little about these anonymous Greek versions of
the Old Testament. Faisebius' words (" which had been concealed
front remote times" toi- TrriAai Aarfoioiio-a? xpovov") woidd lead us
to think them older than the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and
Symmachus. One of them, Eusebius tells us, was found at Nicopo-
VI. i6.]
ORIGEN'S IIEXAPLA.
263
know the authors, he simply stated that he
had found this one in NicopoUs near Ac-
3 tium ^ and that one in some other place. In
the Hexapla * of the Psalms, after the four
lis near Actium, another in a jar at Jericho, but where the third was
discovered he did not know. Jerome (in his Prologus in cxfos.
Cant. CaiU. sec. Origincin ; Ori.i^cn's works, ed. Lonimatzsch, XIV.
235) reports that the " fifth edition" {quiitta editio) was found in
Actio litore ; but Epiphaniu:;, who seems to be speaking with more
exact knowledge than Jerome, says that the " liflh "was discovered
at Jericho and the " sixth " in Nicopolis, near Actium (/)/' mens.
tt pond. 18). Jerome calls the authors of the " fifth " and " sixth "
Juda'icos tratislatores, which accordinc; to his own us.age might
mean either Jews or Jewish Christians (see Redepenning, p. 165),
and at any rate the author of the "sixth" was a Christian, as is
clear from his rendering of Heb. iii. 13: f'lijAfles toO o-wcrat tov Aabv
o"ov 6ia 'Irjerou toO xpiatov. The " fifth " is quoted by Origen on
the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, minor prophets. Kings, &c. ;
the " sixth," on the Psalms, Song of Songs, and Habakkuk, .accord-
ing to Field, the latest editor of the Hexapla. Whether these ver-
sions were fragmentary, or were used only in these particular pas-
sages for special reasons, we do not know. Of the " seventh" no
clear traces can be discovered, but it must have been used for the
Psalms at any rate, as v/e see from this chapter. As to the time
when these versions were found, we are doubtless to assign the dis-
covery of the one at Nicopolis near Actium to the visit made by
Origen to Greece in 231 (see below, p. 306). Epiphanius, who in
the present case seems to be speaking with more than customary
accuracy, puts its discovery into the time of the emperor Alexander
(222-235). T''^ other one, which Epiphanius calls the " fifth," was
found, according to him, in the seventh year of Caracalla's reign
(217) " in jars at Jericho." We know that at this time Origen was in
Palestine (see chap, ig, note 23), and hence Epiphanius' report may
well be correct. If it is, he has good reason for calling the latter the
" fifth," and the former the " sixth." The place and time of the dis-
covery of the " seventh" are alike unknown. For further particu-
lars in regard to these versions, see the prolegomena to Field's edition
of the Hexapla, the article Hexapla in the Diet, of Christ. Biog.,
and Redepenning, II. 164 sq.
' Nicopolis near Actium, so designated to distinguish it from a
number of other cities bearing the same name, was a city of Epirus,
lying on the northern shore of the Ambracian gulf, opposite the
promontory of Actium.
^ Origen's Hexapla {.ra. e^aTrAa, to e^aTrAoOi', to e^acre'AtSor, the
first form being used by Eusebius in this chapter) was a polyglot
Old Testament containing the Hebrew text, a transliteration of it
in Greek letters (important because the Hebrew text was unpointed),
the versions of Aquila, of Symmachus, of the LXX, and of Theodo-
tion, arranged in six columns in the order named, with the addition
in certain places of a fifth, sixth, and even seventh Greek version
(see Jerome's description of it, in his Commentary on Titus, chap.
3, ver. g). The parts which contained these latter versions were
sometimes called Octapla (they seem never to have borne the name
nonapla) . The order of the columns was determined by the fact
that Aquila's version most closely resembled the Hebrew, and hence
was put next to it, followed by Symmachus' version, which was
based directly upon the Hebrew, but was not so closely conformed
to if, while Theodotion's version, which was based not upon the
Hebrew, but upon the LXX, naturally followed the latter. Origen's
object in undertaking this great work was not scientific, but polemic;
it was not for the sake of securing a correct Hebrew text, but for the
purpose of furnishing adequate means for the reconstruction of the
original text of the LXX, which in his day was exceedingly corrupt.
It was Origen's belief, and he was not alone in his opinion (cf.
Justin Martyr's Dial, with Trypho, chap. 71), that the Hebrew
Old Testament had been seriously altered by the Jews, and that the
LXX (an inspired translation, as it was commonly held to be by the
Christians) alone represented the true form of Scripture. For two
centuries before and more than a century after Christ the LXX
stood in high repute among the Jews, even in Palestine, and outside
of Palestine had almost completely taken the place of the original
Hebrew. Under the influence of its universal use among the Jews
the Christians adopted it, and looked upon it as inspired Scripture
just as truly as if it had been in the original tongue. Early in the
second century (as Schlirer points out) various causes were at work
to lessen its reputation among the Jews. Chief among these were
first, the growing conservative reaction against all non-Hebraic
culture, which found its culmination in the Rabbinic schools of the
second century; and second, the ever-increasing hostility to Chris-
tianity. The latter cause tended to bring the LXX into disfavor
v/ith the Jews, because it was universally employed by the Chris-
tians, and was cited in favor of Christian doctrines in many cases
where it differed from the Hebrew text, which furnished less support
to the particular doctrine defended. It was under the influence of
this reaction against the LXX, which undoubtedly began even
before the second century, that the various versions already men-
tioned took their rise. Aquila especially aimed to keep the Hebrew
text as pure as possible, while making it accessible to the Greek-
speaking Jews, who had hitherto been obliged to rely upon the LXX.
It will be seen that the Christians and the Jews, who originally
accepted the same Scriptures, would gradually draw apart, the one
party still holding to the LXX, the other going back to the original;
and the natural consequence of this was that the Jews taunted the
prominent translations, he adds not only a fifth,
but also a si.Kth and seventh." He states of one
of these that he found it in a jar in Jericho in
the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus.
Having collected all of these, he divided 4
them into sections, and placed them opposite
each other, with the Hebrew text itself. He
thus left us the copies of the so-called Hexapla.
He arranged also separately an edition of Aquila
and Symmachus and Theodotion with the Sep-
tuagint, in the Tetrapla.^"
Christians with using only a translation which did not agree with
the original, and therefore was of no authority, while the Christians,
on the other hand, accused the Jews of falsifying their Scriptures,
which should agree with the more pure and accurate LXX. Under
these circumstances, Origen conceived the idea that it would be of
great advantage to the Christians, in their polemics against the Jews,
to know more accurately than they did the true form of the LXX
text, and the extent and nature of its variations from the Hebrew.
As the matter stood everything was indefinite, for no one knew to
exactly what extent the two differed, and no one knew, in the face
of the numerous variant texts, the precise form of the LXX itself
(cf. Redepenning, II. p. 156 sq.). The Hebrew text given by Origen
seems to have been the vulgar text, and to have differed little from
that in use to-day. Witli the LXX it was different. Here Origen
made a special effort to ascertain the most correct text, and did not
content himself with giving simply one of the numerous texts extant,
for he well knew that all were more or less corrupt. But his method
was not to throw out of the text all passages not well supported by
the various witnesses, but rather to enrich the text from all available
sources, thus making it as full as possible. Wherever, therefore,
the Hebrew contained a passage omitted in the LXX, he inserted in
the latter the translation of the passage, taken from one of the other
versions, marking the addition with " obeli"; and wherever, on the
other hand, the fullest LXX text which he had contained more than
the Hebrew and the other versions combined, he allowed the redun-
dant passage to stand, but marked it with asterisks. The Hexapla as
a whole seems never to have been reproduced, but the LXX text as
contained in the fifth column was multiplied many times, especially
under the direction of Pamphilus and Eusebius (who had the original
MS. at Csesarea), and this recension came into common use. It will
be seen that Origen's process must have wrought great confusion in
the text of the LXX; for future copyists, in reproducing the text given
by Origen, would be prone to neglect the critical signs, and give the
whole as the correct form of the LXX; and critical editors to-day
find it very difficult to reach even the form of the LXX text used
by Origen. The Hexapla is no longer extant. When the Caesarean
]\IS. of it perished we do not know. Jerome saw it, and made large
use of it, but after his time we have no further trace of it, and it
probably perished with the rest of the Caesarean library before the
end of the seventh century, perhaps considerably earlier. Numerous
editions have been published of the fragments of the Hexapla,
taken from the works of the Fathers, from Scholia in MSS. of the
LXX, and from a Syriac version of the Hexaplar LXX, which is
still in large part extant. The best edition is that of Field, in two
vols., Oxford, 1875. His prolegomena contain the fullest and most
accurate information in regard to the Hexapla. Comp. also Taylor's
article in the Diet. 0/ Christ. Biog., and Redepenning, II. p. 156 sq.
Origen seems to have commenced his great work in Alexandria.
This is implied by the account of Eusebius, and is stated directly by
Epiphanius {Htcr. LXIV. 3), who says that this was the first work
which he undertook at the solicitation of Ambrose (see chap. 18).
We may accept this as in itself quite probable, for there could be no
better foundation for his exegetical labors than just such a piece of
critical work, and the numerous scribes furnished him by Ambrose
(see chap. 18) may well have devoted themselves largely to this
very work, as Redepenning remarks. But the work was by no
means completed at once. The time of his discovery of the other
versions of the Old Testament (see above, note 6) in itself shows
that he continued his labor upon the great edition for many years
(the late discovery of these versions may perhaps explain the fact
that he did not use them in connection with all the books of the Old
Testament.'); and Epiphanius {de mens, et pond. 18) says that he
was engaged upon it for twenty-eight years, and completed it at
Tyre. This is quite likely, and will explain the fact that the MS.
of the work remained in the Caesarean library. Field, however,
maintains that our sources do not permit us to fix the time or place
either of the commencement or of the completion of the work with
any degree of accuracy (see p. xlviii. sq.).
0 Valesius remarks that there is an inconsistency here, and that
it should be said " not only a fifth and sixth, but also a seventh."
All the MSS. and versions, however, support the reading of the
text, and we must therefore suppose the inconsistency (if there is
one, which is doubtful) to be Eusebius' own, not that of a scribe.
1^ Greek: iv toIs TeTpan-Aoi? eTri/caTaCTKeudtras. The last word
indicates that the Tetrapla was prepared after, not before, the
Hexapla (cf. Valesius in hoc loco), and Redepenning (p. 17s sq.)
gives other satisfactory reasons for this conclusion. 'The design
seems to have been simply to furnish a convenient abridgment of
264
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 17.
"
CHAPTER XVII.
The Translator Symmachtcs}
As to these translators it should be stated
that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the
heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts
that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary,
considering him a mere man, and insists strongly
on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we
have seen already in this history.- Commen-
taries of Symmachus are still extant in which he
appears to support this heresy by attacking the
Gospel of Matthew." Origen states that he ob-
tained these and other commentaries of Sym-
machus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana,*
who, he says, received the books by inheritance
from Symmachus himself.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Ambrose.
1 About this time Ambrose,^ who held the
heresy of Valentinus,- was convinced by
the larger work, fitted for those who did not read Hebrew; that is,
for the great majority of Christians, even scholars.
' On Symmachus, see the previous chapter, note 4.
- In Bk. III. chap. 27. For a discussion of Ebionism, see the
notes on that chapter.
■* On the attitude of the Ebionites toward the Canonical Gospel
of Matthew (to which, of course, Eusebius here refers), see ibid.
note 8. All traces of this work and of Symmachus' " other interpreta-
tions of Scripture" {ixKKiav ei? Tof; yparfias fp/xiji'eiwi') , mentioned
just below, have vanished. We must not include Symmachus'
translation of the Old Testament in these other works (as has been
done by Huet and others), for there is no hint either in this pas-
sage or in that of Palladius (see next note) of a reference to that ver-
sion, which was, like those of Aquila and Theodotion, well known in
Origen's time (see the previous chapter).
■• This Juliana is known to us only from this passage and from
Palladius, Hist. Laus. 147. Palladius reports, on the authority of an
entry written by Origen himself, which he says he found in an ancient
book (ec TraAaioTarw ^ijSAno (rTix')P4'), that Juliana was a virgin of
Caesarea in Cappadocia, and that she gave refuge to Origen in the
time of some persecution. If this account is to be relied upon, Ori-
gen's sojourn in the lady's house is doubtless to be assigned, with
Huet, to the persecution of Maximinus (235-238; see below, chap.
28, note 2). It must be confessed, however, that in the face of the
absolute silence of Eusebius and others, the story has a suspicious
look.
1 Of the early life of Ambrose, the friend of Origen, we know
nothing. We learn from Origen's ExJiortatio ad Martyr, c. 14,
and Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 56, that he was of a wealthy and noble
family (cf. chap. 23 of this book), and from the Exhort, ad Mart.
c. 36, that he probably held some high official position. Eusebius
says here that he was for some time a Valentinian, Jerome that he
was a Marcionite, others give still different reports. However that
was, the authorities all agree that he was converted to the orthodox
faith by Origen, and that he remained devoted to him for the rest of
his life. From chap. 23 we learn that he urged Origen to undertake
the composition of commentaries on the Scriptures, and that he fur-
nished ample pecuniary means for the prosecution of the work. He
was also himself a diligent student, as we gather from that chapter (cf.
also Jerome, de vir. ill. c. 56). From chap. 28 we learn that he was
a confessor in the persecution of Maximinus (Jerome calls him also
a deacon), and it seems to have been in Ca;sarca or its neighborhood
that he suffered, whither he had gone undoubtedly on account of his
affection for Origen, who was at that time there (cf. the Exhort.
c. 41). He is mentioned for the last time in the dedication and con-
clusion of Origen's Contra Celsiiiii, which was written between 246
and 250 (see chap. 36, below) . Jerome {I.e.) states that he died before
Origen, so that he cannot have lived long after this. He left no
writings, except some epistles which are no longer extant. Jerome,
however, in his Ep. ad Marccllam, § i (Migne's ed., Ep. 43), at-
tributes to Ambrose an epistle, a fragment of which is extant under
the name of Origen (to whom it doubtless belongs) and which is
primed in Lommatzsch's edition of Origen's works. Vol. XVII. p. 5.
Origen speaks of him frequently as a man of education and of liter-
Origen's presentation of the truth, and, as if his
mind were illumined by light, he accepted
the orthodox doctrine of the Church. Many 2
others also, drawn by the fame of Origen's
learning, which resounded everywhere, came to
him to make trial of his skill in sacred litera-
ture. And a great many heretics, and not a few
of the most distinguished philosophers, studied
under him dihgently, receiving instruction from
him not only in divine things, but also in
secular philosophy. For when he perceived 3
that any persons had superior intelligence
he instructed them also in philosophic branches
— in geometry, arithmetic, and other prepara-
tory studies — and then advanced to the sys-
tems^ of the philosophers and explained their
writings. And he made observations and com-
ments upon each of them, so that he became
celebrated as a great philosopher even
among the Greeks themselves. And he 4
instructed many of the less learned in the
common school branches,* saying that these
would be no small help to them in the study
and understanding of the Divine Scriptures. On
this account he considered it especially neces-
sary for himself to be skilled in secular and
philosophic learning.^
CHAPTER XIX.
Circumstances related of Origen.
The Greek philosophers of his age are 1
witnesses to his proficiency in these subjects.
We find frequent mention of him in their writ-
ings. Sometimes they dedicated their own works
to him ; again, they submitted their labors
to him as a teacher for his judgment. Why 2
need we say these things when even Por-
phyry,^ who lived in Sicily in our own times and
ary tastes and devoted to the study of the Scriptures, and Jerome
says of him nott inelegajitis ingenii /iiit, sicut ejus ad Originem
epistola indicia sunt {l.c.\. The affection which Origen felt for
him is evinced by many notices in his works and by the fact that he
dedicated to him the Exhortatio ad Martyr.^ on the occasion of
his suffering under Maximinus. It was also at Ambrose's solicita-
tion that he wrote his great work against Celsus, which he likewise
dedicated to him.
- On Valentinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap, ii, note i.
^ Greek, atpecrets.
4 cyKi/KAta -ypa/iinaTa; " the circle of those arts and sciences
which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go through
before applying to any professional studies" (Liddell and Scott, de-
fining kyK. TTaiSeia).
'' On Origen's education, see p. 392, below.
' Porphyry, one of the most distinguished of the Neo-Platonists,
disciple, biographer, and expounder of Plotinus, was born in 232 or
233 in the Orient (perhaps at Tyre), and at the age of thirty went to
Rome, where he came into connection with Plotinus, and spent a
large part of his life. He was a man of wide and varied learning;
and though not an origin.il thinker, he was a clear and vigorous
writer and exjiounder of the philosophy of Plotinus. It may be
well, at this point, to say a word about that remarkable school or
.system of philosophy, of which Plotinus was the greatest master and
Porphyry the chief expounder. Neo-Platonism was the most promi-
nent phenomenon of the age in the philosophic world. The object
of the Neo-Platoiiists was both speculative and practical: on the one
side, to elaborate an eclectic system of philosophy which should
reconcile Platonism and Aristotolianism, and at the same time do
justice to elements of truth in other schools of thought; on the other
VI. 19.]
PORPHYRY'S ACCOUNT OF ORIGEN.
265
wrote books against us, attempting to traduce
the Divine Scriptures by them, mentions those
who have interpreted them ; and being unable in
any way to find a base accusation against the doc-
trines, for lack of arguments turns to reviling and
calumniating their interpreters, attempting espe-
cially to slander Origen, whom he says he
3 knew in his youth. But truly, without know-
ing it, he commends the man ; telling the
side, to revivify and strengthen the old paganism by idealizing and
purifying it for the sake of the philosophers, and at the ^ame time
by giving it a firmer philosophic basis than it had hitherto i»sscssed.
Neo-Platonism, taken as a whole, has therefore both a philosophic
and a religious motive. It may be defined in the briefest terms, in
its philosophic aspect, as an eclectic revival of Greek metaphysics
(especially Platonic-Aristotelian), modified by the influence of Ori-
ental philosophy and of Christianity; in its religious aspect, as an
attempt to restore and regenerate paganism by means of philosophy.
In its earlier and bcttcrdays, the philosophic element greatly pre-
dominated, — in fact, the religious element may be said to have
been, in large part, a later growth; but gradually the latter came
more and more into the foreground, until, under Jamblichus (d.
330 A.D.), the chief master of the Syrian school, Neo-Platonism de-
generated into a system of religious mysteries, in which theurgic
practices played a prominent part. Under Proclus (d. 485), the
great master of the Athenian school, the philosophic element was
again emphasized; but Aristotelianism now gained the predominance,
and the system became a sort of scholastic art, and gr.adually degen-
erated into pure formalism, until it finally lost all influence. The
extent of the influence which Christianity exerted upon Neo-Platon-
ism is a greatly disputed point. We shall, perhaps, come nearest
the truth if we say that its influence was in the main not direct, but
that it was nevertheless real, inasmuch as it had introduced prob-
lems up to that time undiscussed, with which Neo-Platonism busied
itself; in fact, it may almost be said that Neo-Platonism was at first
little more than (Aristotelian-) Platonism busying itself with the
new problems of salvation and redemption which Christianity had
thrown into the world of thought. It was un-Christian at first (it
became under Porphyry and later Neo-Platonists anti-Christian),
because it solved these problems in a way different from the Chris-
tian way. This will explain the fact that all through, whether in the
more strictly philosophic system of Plotinus, or in the more mark-
edly religious and theurgic system of Jamblichus, there ran a vein
of mysticism, the conception of an intimate union with the supreme
God as the highest state to which man can attain.
Porphyry, with whom we are at present concerned, was emi-
nently practical in his thinking. The end of philosophy with him
was not knowledge, but holiness, the salvation of the soul. He
recommended a moderate asceticism as a chief means of freeing the
soul from the bonds of matter, and thus permitting it to rise to union
with God. At the same time, he did not advise the neglect of the
customary religious rites of Paganism, which might aid in the eleva-
tion of the spirit of man toward the deity. It was with Porphyry
that Neo-Platonism first came into direct conflict with Christianity,
and its enmity against the latter goes far to explain the increasing
emphasis which he and the Neo-Platonists who followed him laid
upon religious rites and practices. Its philosophy, its solution of
the great problems of the age, was essentially and radically different
from that of Christianity; and although at first they might run
alongside one another as independent schools, without much thought
of conflict, it was inevitable that in time the rivalry, and then the
active hostility, should come. Neo-Platonism, like Christianity, had
a solution of the great problem of living to offer to the world, — in
an age of unexampled corruption, when thoughtful men were all
seeking for a solution, — and each was essentially exclusive of the
other. The attack, therefore, could not be long delayed. Porphyry
seems to have begun it in his famous work in fifteen books, now lost,
which was answered /« cxtcnso by Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius, and
Apolinarius of Laodicea. The answers, too, have perished; but from
extant fragments we are able to see that Porphyry's attack was very
learned and able. He endeavored to point out the inconsistencies
in the sacred narrative, in order to discredit its divine origin. At
the same time, he treated Christ with the greatest respect, and
ranked him very high as a sage (though only human), and found
much that was good in his teaching. Augustine {De consensu
Evang. I. 15) says that the Neo-Platonists praised Christ, but railed
at his disciples (cf. Eusebius' words in this chapter). Porphyry was
a very prolific writer; but only a few of his works are now extant,
chief among them the di|)op|u.ai Trpb? tol forjTa, or Sententice, a brief
but comprehensive exposition of his philosophic system. We learn
from this chapter that he had met Origen when very young (he was
but about twenty when Origen died) ; where, we do not know. He
lived to be at least sixty-eight years old (see his Vita Plot. 23), and
Suidas says that he died under Diocletian, i.e. before 305 a.d.
On Porphyry and Neo-Platonism in general, see the great works
of Vacherot {Hist, critique de V Ecole d' Alexandrie) and Simon
(Hist, de I' Ecole d' Alexandrie); also Zeller's Philosophic der
Griechen, and especially Erdmann's History 0/ Philosophy (Engl,
trans., London, 1889).
truth about him in some cases where he could
not do otherwise ; but uttering falsehoods where
he thinks he will not be detected. Sometimes
he accuses him as a Christian ; again he de-
scribes his proficiency in philosophic learning.
But hear his own words :
" Some persons, desiring to find a solu- 4
tion of the baseness of the Jewish Scriptures
rather than abandon them, have hatl recourse to
explanations inconsistent and incongruous with
the words written, which explanations, instead of
supplying a defense of the foreigners, contain
ratlier approval and praise of themselves. For
they boast that the plain words of Moses are
enigmas, and regard them as oracles full of hid-
den mysteries ; and having bewildered the men-
tal judgment by folly, they make their explana-
tions." Farther on he says :
" As an example of this absurdity take a 5
man whom I met when I was young, and
who was then greatly celebrated and still is, on
account of the writings which he has left. I re-
fer to Origen, who is highly honored by the
teachers of these doctrines. For this man, 6
having been a hearer of Ammonius,^ who
had attained the greatest proficiency in philoso-
phy of any in our day, derived much benefit
from his teacher in the knowledge of the sci-
ences ; but as to the correct choice of life,
he pursued a course opposite to his. For 7
Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought
up by Christian parents, when he gave himself
to study and to philosophy straightway con-
formed to the life required by the laws. But
Origen, having been educated as a Greek in
Greek literature, went over to the barbarian
recklessness.^ And carrying over the learning
- Of the life of Ammonius Saccas, the " father of Neo-Platonism,"
very little is known. He is said by Suidas {s. v. Origeties) and by
Ammianus Marcellinus to have been a porter in his youth and to
have gained his second name from his occupation. That he was of
Christian parents and afterward embraced paganism is stated in this
passage by Porphyry, though Eusebius (§ lo, below) and Jerome
assert that he remained a Christian. From all that we know of the
teachings of Ammonius Saccas as reported to us by Plotinus and
other Neo-Platonists, we cannot imagine him to have remained a
Christian. The only solution of the difficulty then is to suppose Euse-
bius (whom Jerome follows) to have confounded him with a Christian
of the same name who wrote the works which Eusebius mentions (see
note i6). Ammonius was an Alexandrian by birth and residence, and
died in 243. His teaching was of a lofty and noble character, to
judge from Plotinus' descriptions, and as a teacher he was wonder-
fully fascinating. He numbered among his pupils Herennius, Lon-
ginus, the pagan Origen, and Plotinus. The Christian Origen also
studied under him for a time, according to this passage. He wrote
nothing (according to the Vita Plot. c. 20), and hence we have to
rely solely upon the reports of his disciples and successors for our
knowledge of his system. It is difficult in the absence of all direct
testimony to ascertain his teaching with exactness. Plotinus claims
to give only what he learned from Ammonius, but it is evident, from
his disagreement in many points with others of Ammonius' disciples,
that the system taught by him was largely modified by his own
thinking. It is clear that Ammonius, who undoubtedly took much
from his great master, Numenius, endeavored to reconcile Plato and
Aristotle, thus laying the basis for the speculative eclecticism of
Neo-Platonism, while at the same time there must have been already
in his teaching the same religious and mystical element which was
present to some extent in all his disciples, and which played so
large a part in Neo-Platonism.
•* TO ^dpfiapov T6\iJ.riiJ.a. Porphyry means to say that Origen
was originally a heathen, and was afterward converted to Chris-
tianity; but this is refuted by the universal tradition of antiquity,
and is clearly a mistake, as Eusebius (who calls it a " falsehood")
266
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 19.
which he had obtained, he hawked it about, in his
hfe conducting himself as a Christian and contrary
to the laws, but in his opinions of material things
and of the Deity being like a Greek, and ming-
ling Grecian teachings with foreign fables.^
8 For he was continually studying Plato, and
he busied himself with the writings of Nu-
menius^ and Cronius,'' Apollophanes,' Longinus,*
Moderatus,'-* and Nicomachus,^°and those famous
among the Pythagoreans. And he used the books
of Chseremon" the Stoic, and of Cornutus.^-
remarks below. Porphyry's supposition, in the absence of definite
knowledge, is not at all surprising, for Origen's attainments in secu-
lar learning were such as apparently only a pagan youth could or
would have acquired.
•• On Origen's Greek culture, see p. 392, and also his own words
quoted below in § 12 sq.
'■ Numenius was a philosopher of Syria, who lived about the
middle of the second century, and who exerted great influence over
Plotinus and others of the Neo-Platonists. He was, perhaps, the
earliest of the Orientalizing Greek philosophers whose thinking was
affected by the influence of Christian ideas, and as such occupies an
important place in the development of philosophy, which prepared
the way forNeo-Platonism. His object seems to have been to recon-
cile Pythagoras and Plato by tracing the doctrines of the latter back
to the former, and also to exhibit their agreement with Jewish and
other Oriental forms of thought. It is significant that he was called
by the Church Fathers a Pythagorean, and that he himself called Plato
a Greek-speaking Mose^ (cf. Erdmann's Hist. 0/ Phil. I. p. 236).
He was a prolific writer, but »nly fragments of his works are extant.
Numerous extracts from the chief of them (Tfpi ToiyaOoO) have been
preserved by Eusebius in his Prwp. Evattg. (see Heinichen's ed.
Index I.).
" Of Cronius, a celebrated Pythagorean philosopher, apparently
a contemporary of Numenius, and closely related to him in his
thinking, we know very little. A brief account of him is given by
Porphyry in his / ita Plot. 20.
~' The Apollophanes referred to here was a Stoic philosopher of
Antioch who lived in the third century B.C., and was a disciple of
Ariston of Chios. None of his writings are extant.
* Longinus was a celebrated philosopher and rhetorician of
Athens, who was born about 213 and died in 273 a.d. He traveled
widely in his youth, and was for a time a pupil of Ammonius Saccas
at Alexandria; but he remained a genuine Platonist, and seems not
to have been influenced by the eclecticism of the Neo-Platonists.
He was a man of marked ability, of the broadest culture, and a
thorough master of Greek style. Of his numerous writings we
possess a large part of one beautiful work entitled wcpl vi/iou? (often
published), and fragments of some others (e.g. in Eusebius' Pnep.
Evaug. XV. 21). Longinus was the teacher of Porphyry before
the latter went to Rome to study under Plotinus.
Porphyry has made a mistake in classing Longinus with those
other philosophers whose works Origen studied. He was a younger
contemporary of Origen, and cannot even have studied with Ammo-
nius until after Origen had left Alexandria. It is possible, of course,
that Origen in later life read some of his works; but Porphyry
evidently means that the works of all the philosophers, Longinus
among them, had an influence upon Origen's intellectual develop-
ment. Heinichen reads '.VA^ii'ou instead of Ao-yY'^'o" 'n his text, on
the assumption that Porphyry cannot possibly have written Aoyyu'oi/ ;
but the latter word has the support of all the MS.S. and versions,
and there is no warrant for making the change. We must simply
conclude that Porphyry, who, of course, is not pretending to give
an exact list of all the philosophical works which Origen had read,
classes Longinus, the celebrated philosopher, along with the rest, as
one whose works such a student of Greek philosophy as Origen
must have read, without thinking of the serious anachronism
involved.
" Moderatus was a distinguished Pythagorean philosopher of the
first century after Christ, whose works (no longer extant) were not
without influence over some of the Neo-Platonists.
'" Nicomachus was a Pythagorean of the first (or .second?) cen-
tury after Christ, who gained great fame as a mathematician and
exerted considerable influence upon European studies in the fifteenth
century. Two of his works, one on arithmetic and the other on
music, are extant, and have been published.
11 Cha;remon was a Stoic philosopher and historian of Alexandria
who lived during the first century after Christ. He was for a time
librarian at the Scrapeum in Alexandria, and afterward went to
Rome to become a tutor of Nero. His chief writings were a history
of Egypt, a work on Hieroglyphics, and another on Comets (men-
tioned by Origen in his Contra Cels. I. 59). He also wrote on
grammatical subjects. His works, with the exception of a fragment
of the first, are no longer extant. Cf. Eusebius' Prie/. Evaitg. V.
10, and Suidas, s.v. 'Q.pt.yivn';.
'' Cornutus, a distinguisned Stoic philosopher, lived and taught
in Rome during the reign of Nero, and numbered among his pupils
Becoming acquainted through them with the
figurative interpretation of the Grecian myste-
ries, he applied it to the Jewish Scriptures." ^^
These things are said by Porphyry in the 9
third book of his work against the Chris-
tians.^* He speaks truly of the industry and
learning of the man, but plainly utters a false-
hood (for what will not an opposer of Christians
do ?) when he says that he went over from the
Greeks,''^ and that Ammonius fell from a life
of piety into heathen customs. For the 10
doctrine of Christ was taught to Origen by
his parents, as we have shown above. And Am-
monius held the divine philosophy unshaken and
and friends the poet Pcrsius. Most of his numerous works have
perished, but one on the Nature of the Gods is still extant in a
mutilated form (see Gall's Opuscula). See Suidas {s.v. Kopj-oGros)
and Dion Cassius, XLII. 29.
^3 Origen was not the first to interpret the Scriptures allegori-
cally. The method began among the Alexandrian Jews some time
before the Christian era, the effort being m,^de to reconcile the
Mosaic revelation with Greek philosophy, and to find in the former
the teachings of the latter. This effort appears in many of the
apocryphal books, but the great exponent of the method was the
Alexandrian Philo. It was natural that the early Christians, espe-
cially in Alexandria, should be influenced by this already existing
method of interpretation, which enabled them to make of the Old
Testament a Christian book, and to find in it all the teachings of the
Gospel. Undoubtedly the Old Testament owes partly to this princi-
ple of interpretation its adoption by the Christian Church. Had it
been looked upon as the Jewish Scriptures only, containing Jewish
national history, and in large part Jewish national prophecy, it
could never have retained its hold upon the early Church, which
was so bitterly hostile to all that savored of Judaism. The early Gen-
tile Christians were taught from the beginning by Jewish Christians
who could not do otherwise than look upon their national Scriptures
as divine, that those Scriptures contained prophecies of Jesus Christ,
and hence those Gentile Christians accepted them as divine. P)Ut
it must be remembered that they could of course have no meaning
to these Gentile Christians except as they did prophesy of Christian
things or contain Christian teaching. They could not be content
to find Christian prophecy in one part and only Jewish history or
Jewish prophecy in another part. It must rt//be Christian if it was
to have any meaning to them. In this emergency tlie allegorical
method of interpretation, already practiced upon the Old "I'estament
by the Alexandrian Jews, came to their assistance and was eagerly
adopted. The so-called epistle of Piarn.ibus is an early and most
.significant instance of its use. With Clement of Alexandria the
matter first took scientific shape. He taught that two senses are
everywhere to be assumed; that the verbal sense is only for b.ibes
in the faith, and tliat the allegorical sense alone leads to true spirit-
ual knowledge. With Origen allegorical interpretation reached its
height. He taught a threefold sense of Scripture, corresponding to
body, soul, and spirit. Many voices were raised against his inter-
pretation, but they were directed against his particular explanations
of the meaning of passages, seldom against his method. In the
early centuries Alexandria remained the chief center of this kind of
exegesis, while Antioch became in the fifth century the scat of a
school of exegetes who emphasized rather the grammatical and his-
torical interpretation of Scripture over against the extremes of the
Alexandrian teachers. And yet even they were not entirely free
from the vicious methods of the age, and, moreover, errors of various
kinds crept in to lessen their influence, and the allegorical method
finally prevailed almost imiversally: and it has not even yet fully
lost its hold. This metliod of .Scrijiture interpretation has, as Por-
phyry says, its analogy in the methods of the (Jreek philosophers
during the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. It
became early the custom for philosophers, scandalized by the licen-
tious stories of their gods, to interpret the current myths allegori-
cally and refer them to the processes of nature. Homer and others
of the ancient poets were thus made by these later pliilosophcrs to
teach i)hilosophies of nature of which they had never dreamed.
With the Neo-Platonists this method reached its highest perfection,
.ind while the Christian teachers were allegorizing the Old Testa-
ment .Scriptures, these philosoiihers were transforming the popular
myths into records of the profoundest physical and spiritual pro-
cesses. Porphyry saw that the method of pagans and Christians was
the srmie in this respect, and he m.ay be correct in assigning some
influence to these writings in the shaping of Origen's thinking, but
the latter was an allegorist before he studied the philosophers to
whom Porphyry refers (cf. chap. 2, § q, .above), and would have
been an allegorist had he never studied them. Allegory was in that
age in tlie atmosphere of the Church as well as of the philosophical
school.
'* On this great work of Porphyry, see note i.
''' See note 3.
VI. 19-]
ORIGEN'S GRECIAN LEARNING.
267
unadulterated to the end of his life."' His works
yet extant show this, as he is celebrated among
many for the writings which he has left. For
example, the work entitled The Harmony of
Moses and Jesus, and such others as are in
11 the possession of the learned. These things
are sufficient to evince the slander of the
false accuser, and also the proficiency of Origen
in Grecian learning. He defends his diligence
in this direction against some who blamed him
for it, in a certain epistle," where he writes as
follows :
12 "When I devoted myself to the word,
and the fame of my proficiency went abroad,
and when heretics and persons conversant with
Grecian learning, and particularly with philoso-
phy, came to me, it seemed necessary that I
should examine the doctrines of the heretics,
and what the philosophers say concerning
13 the truth. And in this we have followed
Pantasnus,^** who benefited many before our
time by his thorough preparation in such things,
and also Heraclas,^'-' who is now a member of
the presbytery of Alexandria. I found him with
the teacher of philosophic learning, with whom
he had already continued five years before I
began to hear lectures on those subjects.-"
14 And though he had formerly worn the com-
18 This is certainly a mistake on Eusebius' part (see above, note
2), in which he is followed by Jerome ((/<' vir. ill. c. 55). Against
the identification of the Christian Ammonius, whose works are men-
tioned by Eusebius and Jerome, with Ammonius Saccas, may be
urged first the fact that the teaching of Ammonius Saccas, as known
to us from Porphyry's V'ita Plotiiii and from other Neo-Tlatonic
sources, is not such as could have emanated from a Christian; and,
in the second place, the fact that the Christian Ammonius, accord-
ing to Eusebius, was the author of more than one important work,
while Longinus (as quoted by Porphyry in the Vita Plot. c. 20)
says explicitly that Ammonius Saccas wrote nothing. It is clear
from Eusebius' words that his sole reason for supposing that Ammo-,
nius Saccas remained a Christian is the existence of the writings to
which he refers; and it is quite natural that he and othei-s should
erroneously attribute the works of an unknown Christian of Alex'an-
dria, named Ammonius, to the celebrated Alexandrian philosopher
of the same name, especially since it was known that the latter had
been a Christian in his youth, and that he had been Origen's teacher
in his mature years. We know nothing about the life of the Chris-
tian Ammonius, unless he be identified with the presbyter Ammo-
nius of Alexandria, who is said by Eusebius to have perished in the
persecution of Diocletian. The identification is possible; but even
if it be accepted, we are helped very little, for is only the death, not
the life, of the presbyter Ammonius with which Eusebius acquaints
us. Ammonius' writings, whoever he may have been, were well
known in the Church. Eusebius mentions here his work Oti the
Harmony of .Moses and yesits (Trepl t^s SIioi)o-eu)5 xat '\t\(jo\i
(TujLK^coi'ias), and in an epistle addressed to Carpianus (see above, p.
38 sq.) speaks of a Diaiessaroii or Harmony of the Four Gospels
(to 6'ia. TdTo-dputi' (vayye\ioi>) , composed by Ammonius. Jerome
mentions both these works (rle z'ir. ill. 55), the latter under the
title Evangelici Cationes. He refers to these Canones again in
his preface to the Four Gospels (Migne's ed.. Vol. X. 528) ; and so
does Victor of Capua. The former work is no longer extant, nor
have we any trace of it. But there is extant a Latin translation of
a Diatessaron which was made by Victor of Capua, and which was
formerly, and is still, by many scholars supposed to be a version of
this work of Ammonius. By others it is thought to be a translation
of Tatian's Diatessaron. For further particulars, see above, Bk.
IV. chap. 2g, note ir.
" The names of the persons to whom this epistle was addressed
we do not know, nor can we ascertain the exact time when it was
composed, though it must have been written before Heraclas became
bishop of Alexandria, and indeed, we may assume, while Origen was
in Alexandria, and still engaged in the study which he defends in
the epistle, i.e., if Eusebius is correct in the order of events, before
216 A.D. (see note 23).
'" On Pantsenus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note i.
'•' On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
'" tfceiVo)!' Tuii" \6yiav.
mon dress, he laid it aside and assumed and still
wears the philosopher's garment;-' and he con-
tinues the earnest investigation of Greek works."
He says these things in defending himself
for his study of Grecian literature. About 15
this time, while he was still at Alexamlria,
a soldier came and delivered a letter from the
governor of ;\rabia ^'-^ to Demetrius, bishop of
the parish, and to the prefect of Egypt who was
in office at that time, requesting that they would
with all speed send Origen to him for an inter-
view. Being sent by them, he went to Arabia.
And having in a short time accomplished the
object of his visit, he returned to Alex-
andria. But sometime after a considerable 16
war broke out in the city,-" and he departed
from Alexandria. And thinking that it would be
unsafe for him to remain in Egypt, he went to
Palestine and abode in Coesarea. While there
the bishops of the church in that country-^ re-
quested him to preach and expound the Scrip-
tures publicly, although he had .^nbt yet
been ordained as presbyter.-^ Tljiis is evi- 17
-1 See above, Bk. IV. chap.^ii, note 21.
-- The words used to designate the official who sent for Origen
(6 T^s 'Apa(3ias r)7ou/xei'o?) lead us to think him a Roman, and
governor of the Roman provinc^i5,of Arabia, which was formed by
the Emperor Trajan in the year>o6, and which comprised only the
northern part of the penifisuBrT We know no particulars of this
visit of Origen to that proviiicc, but that he was remembered and
held in honor by the people is proved by chaps. 33 and 37, which
record that he was summoned thither twice to assist in settling doc-
trinal difficulties.
-'' In Ae sixlh^^ear of his reign (216 A.D.) Caracalla visited
Alexandria, and improved the occasion to take bloody vengeance
upon the inhabitants of the city, from whom had emanated a num-
ber of satirical and cutting comments upon the murder of his brother
Geta. He instituted a horrible butcherj', in which young and old,
guilty and innocent, perislicd, and in which scholars were objects
of especial fury. (See Herodian, IV. 8, 9, and Dion Cassius,
LXXVII. 22-24, and cf. Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. III. p. 115 sq.)
This was midoubtedly the occasion, referred to here, which caused
■Origen to flee from the city and retire to Palestine.
2^ oi TrJSe eiria-KonoL. The rijSe must refer to Palestine, not to
Ca;sarea, for " bishops " are spoken of, not " bishop."
2^ In the apostolic age, and the generations immediately succeed-
ing, it was the privilege of every Christian to take part in the public
meetings of the Church in the way of teaching or prophesying, the
only condition being the consciousness of guidance by the Spirit
(see I Cor. .\iii.). We cannot call this teaching and prophesying
preaching in our sense of the term. The services seem rather to
have resembled our " open prayer-meetings." Gradually, as the
services became more formal and stereotyped, a stated address by
the " president" (as Justin calls him) became a regular part of the
service (see Justin's Apol. I. 67), and we may assume that the lib-
erty of teaching or prophesying in the public meetings did not now
belong to all the members as it had in the beginning. The sermon,
in our sense of the word, seems to have been a slow growth, but a
direct development from this exhortation of the president mentioned
by Justin. The confinement of the speaking (or preaching) to a
single individual, — the leader, — which we see in Justin, is what we
find in subsequent generations quite generally established. It be-
comes, in time, the prerogative of the bishop to preach, and this pre-
rogative he confers upon his presbyters also (not universally, but in
most cases), while deacons and laymen arc almost everywhere ex-
cluded from the right. We see from the present chapter, however,
that the custom was not the same in all parts of the Church in the
time of Origen. The principle had evidently before this become
firmly established in Alexandria that only bishops and presbyters
should preach. But in Palestine no such rule was recognized as
binding. At the same time, it is clear enough that it was excep-
tional even there for laymen to preach (in the presence of their
bishops), for Alexander in his epistle, instead of saying that laymen
preach everywhere and of right, cites particular instances of their
preaching, and says that where they are qualified they are especially
requested by the bishops to use their gifts; so that the theory that
the prerogative belonged of right to the bishop existed there just as
truly as in Alexandria. Origen of course knew that he was acting
contrary to the custom (if not the canon) of his own church in thus
preaching publicly, and yet undoubtedly he took it for granted that
he was perifectly right in doing what these bishops requested him to
268
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
UVi. 19.
dent from what Alexander/^ bishop of Jeru-
salem and Theoctistus^ of Csesarea, wrote to
Demetrius ^ in regard to the matter, defending
themselves thus :
"He has stated in his letter that such a thing was
never heard of before, neither has hitherto taken
place, that laymen should preach in the presence
of bishops. I know not how he comes to
18 say what is plainly untrue. For whenever
persons able to instruct the brethren are
found, they are exhorted by the holy bishops to
preach to the people. Thus in Laranda, Euelpis
by Neon ; and in Iconium, Paulinus by Celsus ;
and in Synada, Theodorus by Atticus, our blessed
brethren.^'* And probably this has been done in
other places unknown to us."
He was honored in this manner while yet a
young man, not only by his countrymen, but
19 also by foreign bishops.^ But Demetrius
sent for him by letter, and urged him
through members and deacons of the church to
return to Alexandria. So he returned and re-
sumed his accustomed duties.
CHAPTER XX.
T/ie Extant Works of the Writers of that Age.
1 There flourished many learned men in
the Church at that time, whose letters to
each other have been preserved and are easily
accessible. They have been kept until our time
in the library at ^lia,^ which was established
do in their own dioceses. They were supreme in their own churches,
and he knew of nothing, apparently, which should hinder him from
doing what they approved of, while in those churches. Demetrius,
however, thought otherwise, and considered the public preaching
of an unordained man irregular, in any place and at any time.
Whether jealousy of Origen's growing power had anything to do
with his action it is difficult to say with certainty. He .seems to
have treated Origen in a perfectly friendly way after his return; and
yet it is possible that the difference of opinion on this point, and the
reproof given by Demetrius, may not have been wholly without in-
fluence upon their subsequent relations, which became in the end
so painful (see chap. 8, note 4).
^ On Alexander, see chap. 8, note 6.
-' Theoctistus, bishop of Ca;sarea, seems to have been one of the
most influential bishops of the East in his day, and played a promi-
nent part in the controversy which arose in regard to Novatus, as
we learn from chap. 46 of this book and from chap. 5 of the ne.xt.
He was also a firm friend of Origen's for many years (see chap. 27),
probably until the latter's death. We do not know the dates of his
accession and of his death, but we find him already bishop in the
year 216, and still bishop at the time of the episcopate of Stephen of
Rome (254-257; see Bk. VH. chap. 5), but already succeeded by
Domnus, when Xystus was bishop of Rome ((257-258; see Bk.VII.
chap. 14). Wc must, therefore, put his death between 255 and 258.
^ Euscbius is apparently mistaken in stating that this epistle
was addressed to Demetrius, for the latter is spoken of throughout
the epistle in the third person. It seems probable that Eusebius has
made a slip and said " to Demetrius" when he meant to say " con-
cerning Demetrius."
-■' <Jf the persons mentioned here by the Palestinian bishops in
support of their conduct. Neon, bishop of Laranda in Lyc.aonia, Cel-
sus, bishop of Iconium, and Atticus, bishop of Synada in I'hrygia,
together with the laymen Euelpis, Paulinus, and Theodore, we know
only the names.
•"' oil Trpo! fi-oviMV Twv <Tvvri8oiv, aX.\a icat Tiov enl feVjJ? eTTi-
(ncoTTwi'. avvri9ujv seems here to have the sense of " countrymen " or
(bishops) " of his own country " over against the eVi ^ei'i)?, rather
than the meaning "friends" or "acquaintances," which is more
common,
• y^lia, the city built by Hadrian upon the site of Jerusalem (see
Bk. IV. chap. 6). We do not know the subsequent history of this
by Alexander, who at that time presided over
that church. We have been able to gather from
that hbrary material for our present work.
Among these Beryllus ^ has left us, besides 2
letters and treatises, various elegant works.
He was bishop of Bostra in Arabia. Likewise
also Hippolytus,^ who presided over another
church, has left writings. There has reached 3
us also a dialogue of Caius,* a very learned
man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus,^
with Proclus, who contended for the Phrygian
heresy. In this he curbs the rashness and bold-
ness of his opponents in setting forth new Scrip-
tures. He mentions only thirteen epistles of the
holy apostle, not counting that to the Hebrews ®
with the others. And unto our day there are
some among the Romans who do not consider
this a work of the apostle.
CHAPTER XXI.
The Bishops that were well known at that Time.
After Antoninus ^ had reigned seven years 1
and six months, Macrinus succeeded him.
He held the government but a year, and was
succeeded by another Antoninus, During his
first year the Roman bishop, Zephyrinus," having
held his office for eighteen years, died, and
Callistus ^ received the episcopate. He con- 2
tinned for five years, and was succeeded by
library of Alexander, but it had already been in existence nearly a
hundred years when Eusebius examined it.
- On Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, see chap. 33.
3 On Hippolytus, see chap. 22.
■* On Caius and his discussion with Proclus, see Bk. II. chap. 25,
notes 7 and 8.
'' Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome from 198 or igg to 217. See
Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.
" On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the opinions of the early
Church in regard to its authorship, see Bk. HI. chap. 3, note 17.
1 i.e. Caracalla, who was slain on the 8th of April, 217. P'our
days later, Marcus Opilius Macrinus, prefect of the pra;torians, was
proclaimed emperor. After a reign of fourteen months, he was
defeated and succeeded by Varius Avitus Bassianus, a cousin of
Caracalla, and priest of the Phoenician Sun-god, from which fact is
derived the name by which he is commonly known, — Elagabalus, or
Heliogabalus. Upon his accession to the imperial power, he took
the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, which became his official
designation.
- On Zephyrinus, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.
^ As shown in the next note, a comparison of our best sources
leads us to the year 222 as the dale of the accession of Urban, and
consequently of the death of Callistus. A careful comparison of the
various sources, which differ in regard to the years of the several
episcopates of Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus, but agree as to the
sum of the three, leads to the result that Callistus was bishop for
five years, and therefore his accession is to be put into the year 217,
and the reign of Macrinus (see Lipsius, Chron. d. rem. HischUfe,
p. 171 sq.). This agrees, so far as the years of our era are con-
cerned, with the statement of Eusebius in this chapter; but he
wrongly puts Callistus' .accession into the first year of Alexander,
which LS a result of an error of a year in his reckoning of the dales
(if the emperors, which runs back to Pertinax (see Lipsius, p. 7 sq.).
He does not assign Callistus' accession to the first year of Helioga-
balus because of a tradition connecting the two, but simply because
his reckoning of the lengths of the various episcopates, which were
given in the source used by him, led him to the year 217 for Cal- .
listus' accession, and this, according to his erroneous table of the,
reigns of the emperors, was the first year of Heliog.abalus. We thu^ .
see that Eusebius is in real, though not in apparent, agreement wit!/ i
the Liberian catalogue in regard to the date of Callistus' accessior' 1,
which may, therefore, be accepted as certain.
Nothing was known about the character and life of Callistus • un-
til the discovery of Hippolytus' Philosophumena, or Rc/utatio n of
VI. 22.]
ORIGEN AND MAMM^A.
269
After this, Alexander became Roman
Antoninus having' reiL^ncil but four
Urbanus.'*
emperor,
years/' At tliis time riiilclus" also succeeded
Asclepiades " in the church of Antioch.
3 The mother of the emperor, Mammrea*
AH Ht-rrsies (see the next cli.apter, note i). In Bk. IX. of that
work is given a detailed description of him, from the pen of a very
bitter opponent. At the same time, it can hardly be doubled that
at least the groundwork of the account is true. According to Hip-
polytus, he was a slave; a dishonest ba;iker, who was punished for
his dishonesty; the author of a riot in a Jewish synagogue, who was
sent as a criminal to the mines; finally, after various other adven-
tures, the right-hand man of the bishop Zephyrinus, and after his
death, his successor. According to Hippolytus, he was a Patripas-
sian, and he introduced much laxer methods of church discipline
than had hitherto been in vogue: so lax as greatly to scandalize
Hippolytus, who was a very rigid disciplinarian. Whatever truth
there may be in this highly sensational account (and we cannot
doubt that it is greatly overdrawn), it is at least certain that Callis-
tus took the liberal view of Christian morals and church discipline,
over against the stricter view represented by Hippolytus and his
party. It was, perhaps, owing to his popularity on this account
that, after the death of Zephyrinus, he secured the episcopacy of
Rome, for which Hippolytus was also a candidate. The latter tells
us also that Zephyrinus " set him over the cemetery," — a most in-
teresting notice, as the largest catacomb in Rome bears the name of
St. Callistus, and may be the very one of which Zephyrinus made
him the superintendent.
* Lipsius, in his Chron. d. rlhn. Bischofe, p. 170 sq., shows
that the only fixed point for a calculation of the dates of Urban and
the three bishops preceding him, is the banishment by the Emperor
Maximinus of Pontianus to Sardinia, which took place, according to
the Liberian catalogue, while Severus and Quintinus were consuls;
that is, in the year 235. The duration of Pontianus' episcopate is
shown by a comparison of the best sources to have been a little over
live years (see chap. 23, note 3). This brings us to the year 230 as
the date of Urban's death. According to chap. 23, Urban was bishop
eight years, and with this the Liberian catalogue agrees, so that
this figure is far better supported than the figure nine given by the
Chron. Accepting eight years as the duration of Urban's episco-
pate, we are brought back to 222 as the date of his accession, which
agrees with Eusebius' statement in this chapter (see the previous
note). There are extant Acta S. Urbaiu', which are accepted
as genuine by the Bollandists, and assigned to the second century,
but they cannot have been written before the fifth, and are histor-
ically quite worthless. For a good discussion of his supposed con-
nection with St. Cecilia, which has played such an important part in
ecclesiastical legend, see the article Urbanus in the Did. 0/ Christ.
Biog. We have no certain knowledge of his life and character.
"* Elagabalus was slain in March, 222, after a reign of three years
and nine months, and was succeeded by his cousin, Alexianus Bas-
sianus, who assumed the names Marcus Aurelius Alexander Severus,
by the last two of which he is commonly known.
s Philetus, according to the Chron. (Armenian), became bishop
in the sixth year of Caracalla (216), and was succeeded by Zebinus
in the sixth year of Alexander Severus (227). Jerome puts his
accession into the reign of Macrinus (217-218), and the accession
of Zebinus into the seventh year of Alexander (22S). The acces-
sion of Zebinus must have taken place at least as early as 231 (see
chap. 23, note 4), and there remains therefore no reason to doubt
the approximate accuracy of the latter dates. If the dates given for
Philetus' accession (216-218) be approximately correct, we must
understand the words " at this time " of the present chapter, to refer
back to the reign of Macrinus, or the accession of Alexander Severus,
mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. This does not seem
natural, but we cannot say it is impossible. Knowing the unrelia-
bility of the dates given in the Chron., we are compelled to leave
the matter undecided. He is called by the Armcn. Philip, by
Syncellus <l>tA?)To? ij 'l>i Aitttto?. The latter assigns him an episcopate
of eight years, which agrees with none of the figures given by the
two versions of the Chronicle or by the History. We know nothing
about the person or the life of Philetus.
' On Asclepiades, see chap. 11, note 6.
* Julia Mamaea or Mammaia (Eusebius, Ma;oinat'a) was the niece
of Septimius Severus' wife Julia Domna, the aunt of the Emperor
Elagabalus, and the mother of the Emperor Alexander Severus, by
the Syrian Gessius Marcianus. She accompanied Elagabalus to
Rome, and had strength of character enough to protect her son from
the jealousy of the latter, and to keep him comparatively pure from
the vice and debauchery of the court. During the reign of her son
she exerted great influence, which was in the main highly beneficial ;
but her pride and avarice finally proved fatal, both to her son and
to herself. Her character seems to have been in the main pure
and elevated; and she was apparently inclined to the same sort of
religious syncretism which led her son to adopt many Christian prin-
ciples of action, and to put the busts of Abraham and of Christ, with
those of Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, and the best of the Roman
emperors, m his private chapel (see Lampridius, Vita Se7t. c. 29,
43). Eusebius calls Mammaea Seocre^eo-TaTv; and euAaSi;?, and
Jerome calls her a religiosa femina {de vir. ill. c. 54) ; but there
is no evidence that she was a Christian. The date of Origen's inter-
view with her has been greatly disputed, Huet and Redepenning,
by name, was a most pious woman, if there
ever was one, and of religious life. When the
fame of Origen had extended everywhere and
had come even to her ears, she desired greatly
to see the man, and above all things to make
trial of his celebrated understanding of
divine things. Staying for a time in Anti- 4
och, she sent for him with a military escort.
Having remained with her a while and shown
her many things which were for the glory of the
Lord and of the excellence of the divine teach-
ing, he hastened back to his accustomed work.
CHAPTER XXH.
T/ie JVof/cs of Hippolytus which have I'eached us.
At that time Hippolytus,' besides many 1
other treatises, wrote a work on the pass-
accepting the order of events recorded in this chapter as chrono-
logical, put the interview in the early years of Alexander Severus,
Redepenning assuming an otherwise unrecorded visit of Mammaea
to Antioch, Huet connecting her visit there with the Persian expedi-
tion of Alexander. Huet assumes, upon the authority of Jerome's
Chron., that the Persian expedition took place in the early part
of Alexander's reign; but this is against all other ancient authori-
ties, and must be incorrect (see Tillemont, Mem. III. 763 sq.).
The only occasions known to us, on which Mamma;a can have been
in Antioch, were this expedition of her son (between 230 and 233)
and the visit of her liephew Elagabalus to Antioch, after his vic-
tory over Macrinus in 218. At both these times Origen was quite
probably in Caesarea (see chap. 19, note 23, and p. 392, below), whence
it is more natural to suppose him summoned than from Alexandria.
If we put the interview in 218, we must suppose (as Tillemont sug-
gests) that Eusebius is led by his mention of Alexander to give this
account of his mother, and that he does not intend to imply that the
interview took place after Alexander's accession. There is nothing
at all improbable in this. In fact, it seems more likely that he would
mention the interview in connection with Alexander than in connec-
tion with Elagabalus, in spite of chronology. On the other hand,
it is not impossible that the interview took place subsequently to the
year 231, for Origen's fame was certainly by that time much greater
in Syria than fifteen years previous. At the same time, to accept
this date disarranges seriously the chronological order of the ac-
count of Eusebius, for in chap. 24 we are told of those works which
Origen wrote while yet in Alexandria; that is, before 231. More-
over, there is not the same reason for inserting this account of
Mammaea at this point, if it occurred later in Alexander's reign, that
there is if it occurred in the reign of Elagabalus. We shall, there-
fore, do best to accept the earlier date with Tillemont, Westcott, and
others.
1 Hippolytus (mentioned above in chap. 20) was one of the most
learned men and celebrated writers of his age, and yet his personal
history is involved in the deepest obscurity. The earliest mention
of him is by Eusebius in this passage and in chap. 20, above. But
Eusebius tells us there only that he was a bishop of '"some other
church" (erepa? irov iKK\r)cria<;), and Jerome {de inr. ill. c. 5i) says
that he was a bishop of some church whose name he did not know
{Hippolytus, cujitsdam Ecclcsiie cpiscopiis, noinen qiiippe iirbis
scire non potui). In the East, from the fourth century on, Hippol-
ytus was commonly called bishop of Rome, but the Western tradi-
tion makes him simply a presbyter. The late tradition that he was
bishop of Portus Romanus is quite worthless. We learn from his
Philosoph-iiinena, or Refutation of Heresies, th.at he was active in
Rome in the time of Zephyrinus and Callistus; but what is signifi-
cant is the fact that he never recognizes Callistus as bishop of
Rome, but always treats him as the head of a school opposed to the
orthodox Church. This has given scholars the clue for reconciling
the conflicting traditions about his position and his church. It seems
probable that he was a presbyter of the church of Rome, and was at
the head of a party which did not recognize Callistus as lawful bishop,
but set Hippolytus up as opposition bishop. This explains why
Hippolytus calls himself a bishop, and at the same time recognizes
neither Callistus nor any one else as bishop of Rome. The Western
Church therefore preserved the tradition of Hippolytus only as a
presbyter, while in the Orient, where Hippolytus was known only
through his works, the tradition that he was a bishop (a fact directly
stated in those works; see the preface to his Philosophumena) al-
ways prevailed; and since he was known to have resided in Rome,
that city was made by tradition his see. The schism, which has left
no trace in the writings either of the Western or Eastern Church,
cannot have been a serious one. Doubtless Callistus had the sup-
'I
270
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 22.
over.^ He gives in this a chronological table,
and presents a certain paschal canon of sixteen
years, bringing the time down to the first
2 year of the Emperor Alexander. Of his
other writings the following have reached
port of by far the larger part of the Church, and the opposition of
Hippolytus never amounted to more than talk, and was never strong
enough to enlist, or perhaps even attempt to enlist, the support of
foreign bishops. Callistus and the body of the Church could afford
to leave it unnoticed; and after Callistus' death Hippolytus un-
doubtedly returned to the Church and was gladly received, and the
memory of his brief schism entirely effaced, while the knowledL;e of
his orthodoxy, and of his great services to the Church as a theologian
and a writer, kept his name in high repute with subsequent genera-
tions. A Latin translation of a Chronicle written by Hippolytus is
extant, and t!ie List event recorded in it is the death of the Emperor
Alexander, which took place early in the year 235. The Liberian
catalogue, in an entry which Lipsius i^Chron. d. rihii. Bischo/e,
p. 194) pronounces critically indisputable, records that, in the year
235, the bishop Pontianus and tlie presbyter Hippolytus were trans-
ported as exiles to the island of Sardinia. There is little doubt that
this is the Hippolytus with whom \vc are concerned, and it is highly
probable that both he and Pontianus died in the mines there, and
thus gained the title of martyrs; for not only is the account of Hip-
polytus' martyrdom given by Prudentius in the fifth century not re-
liable, but also in the dcpositio Dtartyrum of the Liberian cata-
logue the bodies of Pontianus and Hippolytus are said to have been
buried in Rome on the same day; and it is therefore natural to think
that Hippolytus' body was brought from Sardinia, as we know Pon-
tianus' was.
The character of Hippolytus, as revealed to us in the Philosophii-
iiieua, is that of a strictly, even rigidly, moral man, of a puritanic dis-
position, who believed in drawing the reins very tight, and allowing to
the members of the Christian Church no license. He was in this di-
rectly opposed to Callistus, who was a lax disciplinarian, and favored
the readmission to the Church even of the worst offenders upon evi-
dence of repentance and suitable penance (see the previous chapter,
note 3). We are reminded greatly of Tertullian and of Novatian in
studying Hippolytus' character. He was, moreover, strictly orthodox
and bitterly opposed to what he considered the patripassianism of
Zephyriuus and of Callistus. He must be admired as a thoroughly
independent, sternly moral, and rigidly orthodox man; while at the
same time it must be recognized that he was irascible, bitter, and in
some respects narrow and bigoted. He is known to have been a
very prolific writer, composing all his works in Greek. Eusebius
mentions but eight works in this chapter, but says that many others
were extant in his day. Jerome, who in the present instance has
other sources of information than Eusebius' History, mentions some
nineteen works {dc zir. ill. c. 61), including all of those named by
Eusebius, except the commentary on portions of Ezekiel and the
work on the Events which followed the Hexa^meron (but see note 4,
below). In the year 1551 a statue representing a venerable man
sitting in a chair, and with an inscription upon it enumerating the
writings of the person commemorated, was found near the church
of San Lorenzo, just outside of Rome. The statue, though it bears
no name, has been shown to be that of Hippolytus; and with the
help of the list given upon it (which contains some thirteen works),
together with some extant fragments of writings which seem to have
been composed by him, the titles known to us have been increased
to about forty, the greater part of which are entirely lost. We cannot
discuss these works here. For the most complete list of Hippolytus'
writings the reader is referred to Caspari's Taiifsymbol und Glan-
bensrei^el, IH. 377 sq., or to the more accessible article by Salmcm
in the Diet. 0/ Christ. Biog. In 1842 was discovered the greater
part of a work in ten books directed against heresies, the first book
of which had been long before published by the Benedictines among
Origen's works with the title o{ I'hilosoplnimena. This discovery
caused great discussion, but it has been proved to the complete sat-
isfaction of almost every scholar that it is a work of Hippolytus
(cf., among other discussions, DiiUinger's llippolytiis und Callistus,
translated by Plummer, and the article in the Diet, of C/irist,
Biog. already referred to). The work was published at Oxford in
1851 by Miller (who, however, wrongly ascribed it to Origen), and
at Gottingen, in 1859, by l>unckcr and Schneiilewin. It is given
alsobyMignc; and an English translation is found in the Atitr-
Niceue Fathers (Amer. ed.). Vol. V., under the title the Refuta-
tion of All Heresies.
2 i'his chronological work on the passover, which contained a
cycle for the purpose of determining the date of the festival, is
mentioned also by Jerome, and is given in the list on the statue, on
vvhich the cycle itself is also engraved. Jerome s.ays that this work
was the occasion of Eusebius' work upon the same subject in which
a ninetcen-ycar cycle was substituted for that of Hippolytus. The
latter was a sixteen-year cycle, and was formed by jjutting togctlier
two of the eight-year cycles of the Greek astronomers, — accord-
ing to whose calcidation the fidl moon fell on the same day of the
month once in eight years, — in order to exhibit also the day of the
week on which it fell; for he noticed that after sixteen years the full
moon moved one day backward (if on Saturday at the beginning of
the cycle, it fell on rriday after the sixteen years were past). He
therefore put together seven sixteen-year cycles, assuming that
after they nad passed the full moon would return again to the same
US : On the Hexsemeron/ On the Works after
the Hexcemeron,^ Against Marcion/ On the Song
of Songs/ On Portions of Ezekiel," On the Pass-
over,** Against All the Heresies ; '•' and you can
find many other works preserved by many.
day of the week, as well as month. This cycle is astronomically
incorrect, the fact being that after sixteen years the full moon falls
not on the same day of the week, but three days later. Hippolytus,
however, was not aware of this, and published his cycle in perfect
good faith. The work referred to seems to have contained an ex-
planation of the cycle, together with a computation by means of it
of the dates of the ( )ld and New Testament passovers. It is no
longer extant, but the cycle itself, which was the chief thing, is
jueserved on the statue, evidently in the form in which it was drawn
up by Hippolytus himself.
•* This treatise on the Hexjemeron, or six days' work, is men-
tioned also by Jerome, but is not in the list on the statue. It is no
longer extant; but according to Jerome {Ep. ad Painmacliiuiu et
Oceamttn, c. 7; Migne's ed. J-'.p. 84), was used by Ambrose in the
composition of his own work upon the same subject, which is still
preserved (cf. also Bk. V. chap. 27, note 3, above).
■* Greek, ei? tu /itra Tr)i' e'f arj/iepoi'. This work is not given in
the list on the statue. It is mentioned in some of the IiISS. of
Jerome under the form et post He.xconeron; but the best MSS.
omit these words, and substitute for them et in E.rodum, a work
which is not mentioned by any other authority. Jerome mentions
also a commentary in (,'enesi/n, which we hear of from no otiicr
source, and whicli may be identical with this work mentioned by
luisebius. If tlie two be identical (which is quite possible), the
nature of the work is plain enough. Otherwise we are left wholly
to conjecture. No fragments of the work have been identified.
•* This work is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the list
on the statue. The last work, however, mentioned in that list bears
the title Trept rayaOov Ka't noOey to KaKov, which, it has been con-
jectured, may be identical with Eusebius and Jerome's Contra Mar-
cioncnt. No fragments are extant.
" Eusebius has simply to kinLo. (^The Song), which is the title
given to the book in the LXX. This commentary on the Song of
Songs is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the statue list.
Four fragments of it are given by Lagarde, in his edition of the
works of Hippolytus.
' Tliis commentaiy on portions of Ezekiel is mentioned by no
one else. A supposed fragment of it is given by Lagarde, Anal.
Syr., p. 90.
* Jerome agrees with Eusebius in mentioning a work On the Pass-
07'er, in addition to tlie chronological one already referred to. The list
on the statue, however, mentions but one work on the passover, and
that the one containing the paschal cycle. Fragments are extant of
Hippolytus' work Opt the Passover, — one from his ff>;i/7)<ris et? to
TTatrxa (see Lagarde's edition of Hippolytus, p. 213), and another
from " the first book of the treatise on the holy paschal feast" (tou
Trept Tov ayiov ndcrxa (7uyYpciju.jti.aT09, Lagarde, p. 92). These frag-
ments are of a dogmatic character, and can hardly have occurred in
the chronological work, except in a separate section or book; but
the last is taken from " the first book" of the treatise, and hence we
are safe in concluding that Eusebius and Jerome are correct in
enumerating two separate works upon the same subject, — the one
chronological, the other dogmatic, or polemical.
" This work. Against All the Heresies, is mentioned both by
Eusebius (vrpb? otTrticra? T<i? aipetret?) and Jerome i^adv. omnes
hefreses'),\i\\^ is not given in the list on the statue. Quite a full
account of it is given from personal knowledge by Photius {Cod.
T2i), who calls it a small book {HifiKi&apiov) directed against thirty-
two heresies, beginning with the Dositheans anil ending with Noetus,
and saj ; ..lat it purported to be an abstract of lectures delivered by
lrcna:us. The work is no longer extant (it must not be confounded
with the Philosophiiinet/a, or Refiitatio, mentioned in note i), but
it lias been in part restorcil by Lipsius (in his Quellenhritik lies
Jipiphanius) from the anti-heretical works of Pscudo-Tertullian,
I'.piphanius, and Philaster. Tliere is in existence also a fragment
of considerable length, bearing in the MS. the title Homily of Hip-
polytus againt the Heresy of one Noetus. It is apparently not a
homily, but the conclusion of a treatise against a number of heresies.
It was suggested by F.abricius (who first published the original
Greek) that it constituted the closing chajiter of the work against
the thirty-two heresies. The chief objection to this is that if this
fragment forms but one of thirty-two chapters, the entire work can
liardly have been called a " little book " by Photius. Lipsius sug-
gests that the little book of which Pliolius siieaks was not the com-
plete work <if Hi|)]K)lytus, but only an abbreviated sununary of its
contents, ami this is quite possible. At any rate it seems iirobable,
in spile of the objections wliiili liave been urged by some critics,
that this constituted a part of the larger work, ami hence we have one
cliapter of that work preserved. The work seems to have beeii com-
posed in Rome and during the episcopate of Victor (as Lipsius
iiolds), or, as is more probable, in the early part of the episcopate
of Zephyrmus (as is maintained by Harnaik). This conclusion is
tlrawn from the dates of the heretics mentioned in tlie work, .some
iif whom were as late as Victor, but mme of them later tlian the
early years of Zephyrimis. It must, too, have been composed some
years before tlie Philosoplunnena, whic h (in the preface) refers to
a work against heresies, written by its author " a long time before "
VI. 24.]
ORIGEN'S ORDINATION.
271
CHAPTER XXIII.
Origen's Zeal and his Elevation to the Presby-
terate.
]. At that time Origen began his commen-
taries on the Divine Scriptures, being urged
thereto by Ambrose/ who employed innumerable
incentives, not only exhorting him by word,
2 but also furnishing abundant means. For
he dictated to more than seven amanuenses,
who relieved each other at appointed times. And
he employed no fewer copyists, besides girls who
were skilled in elegant writing. For all these
Ambrose furnished the necessary expense in
abundance, manifesting himself an inexpressible
earnestness in diligence and zeal for the divine
oracles, by which he especially pressed him on
to the preparation of his commentaries.
3 While these things were in progress, Urba-
nus,- who had been for eight years bishop
of the Roman church, was succeeded by Ponti-
anus,'' and Zebinus^ succeeded Philetus^ in
4 Antioch. At this time Origen was sent to
Cireece on account of a pressing necessity
(irdAai). Upon this work and its relation to the lost Syntagma of
Justin IVIartyr, which Lipsius supposes it to have made use of, see
his work already referred to and also his Quelleii dcr'dltesten Ketz-
ergeschichte together with Harnack's Quellenkritik der Gescli.
des GnosticzsfiiHS, and his article in the Zeitschrift fur historisclte
Tkeologie, 1874, p. 143-226.
1 On Ambrose and his relation to Origen, see chap. 18, note i.
- On Urbanus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 21, note 4.
2 For the dates of the first group of Roman bishops, from Peter
to Urbanus, the best source we have is Eusebius' Church History ;
but for the second group, from Pontianus to Liberius, the notices of
the History arc very unreliable, while the Liberian catalogue rests
upon very trustworthy data (see Lipsius, Chron. d. roiii. Bischofe,
p. 39 and p. 142 sq.). We must therefore turn to the latter for the
most accurate information in regard to the remaining Roman bishops
mentioned by Eusebius, although an occasional mistake in the cata-
logue must be corrected by our other sources, as Lipsius points out.
The notice of Eusebius at this point would throw the accession of
Pontianus into the year 231, but this is a year too late, as seen in
chap. 21, note 4. According to chap. 29, he was bishop six years,
and was succeeded by Anteros at about the same time that Gordian
became emperor; that is, in 238. But this is wide of the truth. The
Liberian catalogue, which is supported by the best of the other
sources, gives a little over five years for his episcopate, and puts his
banishment to Sardinia, with which his episcopate ended, on the
28th of September, 235. According to the Felician catalogue, which
may be trusted at this point, he was brought to Rome and buried
there during the episcopate of Fabian, which began in 236 (see also
the preceding chapter, note i). We know nothing about the life
and character of Pontianus.
* The notices of the Chronicle in connection with Zebinus are
especially unreliable. The Ari/ien. puts his accession into the
si.Kth (227), Jerome into the seventh year of Ale.xander (22S). Je-
rome makes no attempt to fi.\ the date of his death, while the A rmoi.
puts it in the first year of Gallus (251-252). Syncellus assigns him
but si.x years. In the midst of such confusion we are obliged to
rely solely upon the History. The only reliable data we have are
Origen's ordination to the priesthood, which took place in 231 (see
below, p. 392) and apparently, according to this chapter, while Zebinus
was bishop of Antioch. If Eusebius is correct in this synchroniza-
tion, Zebinus became bishop before 231, and therefore the statements
of the Chron. as to his accession may be appro.ximately correct. As
to the time of his death, we know that his successor, Babylas, died
in the Decian persecution (see chap. 39), and hence Zebinus must
have died some years before that. In chap. 29, Eusebius puts his
death in the reign of Gordian (238-244), and this may be accepted
as at least approximately correct, for we have reason to think that
Babylas was already bishop in the time of Philip (see chap. 29, note 8).
This proves the utter incorrectness of the notice of the Arine?i.
We know nothing about the person and life of Zebinus. Harnack
concludes from his name that he was a Syrian by birth. Most of the
MSS. of Eusebius give his name as Zs^lvo<;: one MS. and Nicepho-
rus, as Ze^fyos; Syncellus as Zi^evvoi;; Rufinus, Jerome, and the
Armen. as Zebennus.
^ On Philetus, see chap. 21, note 6.
in connection with ecclesiastical affairs," and
went through Palestine, and was ordained as
presbyter in Cassarea by the bishops of that
country. The matters that were agitated con-
cerning him on this account, and the decisions
on these matters by those who presided over
the churches, besides the other works concern-
ing the divine word which he published while in
his prime, demand a separate treatise. We have
written of them to some extent in the second
book of the Defense which we have composed
in his behalf.^
CHAPTER XXIV.
The Cojiiineutarics whicJi he prepared at
Akxandria.
It may be well to add that in the sixth 1
book of his exposition of the Gospel of
John ' he states that he prepared the first five
while in Alexandria. Of his work on the en-
tire Gospel only twenty-two volumes have
come down to us. In the ninth of those on 2
Genesis,- of which there are twelve in all, he
8 See the note on p. 395, below.
^ Eusebius refers here to the Defense of Origen, composed by
himself and Pamphilus, which is unfortunately now lost (see above,
chap. 2, note i, and the Prolegomena, p. 36 sq.).
' Origen's commentary upon the Gospel of John was the " first
fruits of his labors at Alexandria," as he informs us in Tom. I. § 4.
It must have been commenced, therefore, soon after he formed the
connection with Ambrose mentioned in the previous chapter, and
that it was one of the fruits of this connection is proved by the way
in which Ambrose is addressed in the commentary itself (Tom. I.
§3). The date at which the work was begun cannot be determined;
but if Eusebius follows the chronological order of events, it cannot
have been before 218 (see chap. 21, note 8). Eusebius speaks as if
Origen had expounded the entire Gospel (tjj? K eis to iraf fiiayyeAioi'
aiiTo 6e toOto Trpay/iareia?) , but Jerome, in his catalogue of Origen's
works given in his epistle to Paula (in a fragmentary form in Migne's
ed., Ep. 33, complete in the Zeitschrift fi'ir Hist. Theol. i85r,
p. 75 sq.), reports that the commentary consisted of thirty-two
books and some notes (cf. his prologue to his translation of Origen's
homilies on Luke, Migne's ed., VII. 219), and Rufinus likewise
{Apol. II. 22) speaks of thirty-two books only. But in the thirty-
second book, which is still extant, Origen discusses the thirteenth
chapter of John, and does not promise to continue the commentary,
as he does at the close of some of the other books. We may there-
fore conclude that Eusebius' rather indefinite statement (which was
probably not based upon personal knowledge, for he says that he
had seen only twenty-two books), is incorrect, and that the com-
mentary extended no further than the thirteenth chapter. We
learn from the preface to the sixth book that the first five were
composed while the author was still in Alexandria, the remaining
books after his removal to Ceesarea, and at least part of them after
the persecution of Maximinus (235-238), to which reference was
made in the twenty-second book, according to Eusebius, chap. 28,
below. There are still extant Books I., II., VI., X., XIIL, XX.,
XXVIII., XXXII., small fragments of IV. and V., and the greater
part of XIX. (printed in Lommatzsch's ed.. Vols. I. and II.).
The production of this commentary marked an epoch in the
history of theological thought, and it remains in many respects
the most important of Origen's exegetical works. It is full of
original and suggestive thought, and reveals Origen's genius per-
haps in the clearest and best light, though the exegesis is everywhere
marred by the allegorizing method and by neglect of the grammatical
and historical sense.
- Of the commentary on Genesis, only some fragments from the
first and third books are extant, together with some extracts
(t-xAoyai), and seventeen homilies (nearly complete) in the Latin
translation of Rufinus (see Lommatzsch's ed.. Vol. VIII.). Eight of
the books, Eusebius tells us, were written in Alexandria, and they
must, of course, have been begun after the commencement of the
commentary on John. Jerome (according to Rufinus, Apol. II. 20)
gave the number of the book as thirteen (though in his catalogue
mentioned in the previous note, he speaks of fourteen), and said
that the thirteenth discussed Gen. iv. 15; and in his Cofitra Cels.
VI. 49 Origen speaks of his work upon Genesis " from the beginning
272
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 24.
states that not only the preceding eight had been
composed at Alexandria, but also those on the
first twenty-five Psalms ^ and on Lamentations.*
Of these last five volumes have reached us. In
them he mentions also his books On the
3 Resurrection/ of which there are two. He
wrote also the books De Principiis*^ before
leaving Alexandria ; and the discourses entitled
Stromata," ten in number, he composed in the
same city during the reign of Alexander, as the
notes by his own hand preceding the volumes
indicate.
of the book up to "V. i. We may therefore conclude that the com-
mentary covered only the early chapters of Genesis. The homilies,
however, discuss brief passages taken from various parts of the
book.
■* Origen's writings on the Psalms comprised a complete com-
mentary (cf. Jerome's Ep. ad Augiistintnn, § 20; Migne's ed.; Ep.
112), brief notes ("quod Enchiridion ille vocabat," see Migne's
edition of Jerome's works, Vol. VIII. 821, and compare the entire
Breviarium in Psalnios which follows, and which doubtless con-
tains much of Origen's work; see Smith and Wace, IV. p. 108) and
homilies. Of these there are slill extant numerous fr.ngments in
Greek, and nine complete homilies in the Latin version of Rufinus
(printed by Lommatzsch in Vols. XI. -XIII.). The catalogue of
Jerome mentions forty-si.v books of notes on the Psalms and 118
homilies. The commentary on the 26th and following Psalms seem to
have been written after leaving Alexandria (to judge from Eusebius'
statement h£re).
■* There are extant some extracts (exAoyai) of Origen's exposi-
tions of the book of Lamentations, which are printed by Lommatzsch,
XIII. 167-218. They are probably from the commentary which
Eusebius tells us was written before Origen left Alexandria, and five
books of which were extant in his time. The catalogue of Jerome
aleo mentions five books.
fi Jerome (in the catalogue and in the passage quoted by Rufinus,
Apol. II. 20) mentions two books and two dialogues on the Resur-
rection {^De Resttrri'ciionc libros duos. Et alios de Resurrcctiotie
dialogos duos). Whether the dialogues formed an independent
work we do not know. We hear of them from no other source. The
work was bitterly attacked by Methodius, but there are no traces of
heresy in the extant fragments.
ij Of Origen's De Principiis (Ttpi apx''"') > which was written
before he left Alexandria, there are still extant some fragments in
Greek, together with brief portions of a translation by Jerome (in
his epistle to Avitus; Migne's ed.; Ep. 124), and a complete but
greatly altered translation by Rufinus. The latter, together with
the extant fragments, is printed by Lommatzsch, Vol. XXI.; and
also separately by Redepenning (Lips. 1836); Engl, trans, by
Crombie, in the Ante-N'icenc Fathers. The work is the most im-
portant of all Origen's writings, and from it we gather our fullest
knowledge as to his opinions, philosophical and theological; though
unfortunately Rufinus' alterations have made it doubtful in many
cases what Origen's original meaning was. The work constitutes
the first attempt to form a system of Christian doctrine. It con-
tains a great many peculiar, often startling errors, and was the chief
source of the attacks made upon Origen for heterodoxy; and yet
the author's object was only to set forth the doctrines accepted by
the Church, and to show how they could be systematized by the aid
of Scripture or of reason. He did not intend to bring forward doc-
trines inconsistent with the received faith of the Church. The
work consists of four books. To quote from Westcott: " The com-
position is not strictly methodical. Digressions and repetitions
interfere with the symmetry of the plan. But to speak generally,
the first book deals with God and creation (religious st.aTics) ; the
second and third books with creation and providence, with m.an and
redemption (religious dynamics) ; and the fourth book with Holy
Scripture."
Intellectually the work is of a very high order, abounding in
deep and original thought as well as in grand and lofty senti-
ments.
7 In his catalogue, Jerome gives among the commentaries on the
Old Testament the simple title Stromatuin, without any descrip-
tion of the work. But in his Ep. ad Mag-num, § 4 (Migne's cd.,
Ep. 70), he says that Origen wrote ten books of Stromata in imita-
tion of Clement's work, and in it compared the opinions of Chris-
tians and philosophers, and confirmed the dogmas of Christianity l)y
appeals to Plato and other Greek philosophers (Ihtnc imitatus
Origines, decent scripsit Stromateas, Christiattoruin et phi/oso-
phoriim inter se sentetttias coinparans : et omnia nostrip re-
ligionis dogmata de Flatone et Aristotele, Numenio, Cornuto-
que confirtnans'). Only three brief fragments of a Latin translation
of the work arc now extant (printed in Lommatzsch's ed., XVII.
69-78). These fragments are sufficient to show us that the work
was exegetical as well as doctrinal, and discussed topics of various
kinds in the light of Scripture as well as in the light of philosophy.
CHAPTER XXV.
His Review of the Canonical Sc7-ipttires.
When expounding the first Psalm,^ he 1
gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures
of the Old Testament - as follows :
" It should be stated that the canonical books,
as the Hebrews have handed them down, are
twenty-two ; corresponding with the number of
their letters." Farther on he says :
" The twenty-two books of the Hebrews 2
are the following : That which is called by
us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the begin-
ning of the book, Bresith," which means, ' In the
beginning' ; Exodus, Welesmoth,^"that is, 'These
are the names ' ; Leviticus, Wikra, ' And he
called ' ; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim ; Deuter-
onomy, Eleaddebareim, * These are the words ' ;
Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun ;
Judges and Ruth, among them in one book,
Saphateim ; the First and Second of Kings,
among them one, Samouel, that is, ' The called of
God ' ; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one,
Wammelch David, that is, ' The kingdom of
David ' ; of the Chronicles, the First and Sec-
ond in one, Dabre'iamein, that is, ' Records of
days ' ; Esdras,* First and Second in one, Ezra,
that is, ' An assistant ' ; the book of Psalms,
Spharthelleim ; the Proverbs of Solomon, Me-
loth ; Ecclesiastes, Koelth ; the Song of Songs
(not, as some suppose. Songs of Songs), Sir Hassi-
rim ; Isaiah, Jessia ; Jeremiah, with Lamenta-
tions and the epistle in one, Jeremia ; Daniel,
Daniel ; Ezekiel, Jezekiel ; Job, Job ; Esther,
Esther. And besides these there are the Mac-
cabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.'
He gives these in the above-mentioned work.
' On Origen's commentary on Psalms, see the previous chapter,
note 3. The first fragment given here by Eusebius is found also in
the Philocalia, chap. 3, where it forms part of a somewhat longer
extract. The second fragment is extant only in this chapter of
Eusebius' History.
^ On the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, see Bk. III. chap.
10, note I. Upon Origen's omission of the twelve minor prophets and
the insertion of the apocryphal epistle of Jeremiah, see the same note.
•■^ I have reproduced Origen's Greek transliteration of this and
the following Hebrew words letter by letter. It will be seen by a
comparison of the words with the Hebrew titles of the books, as
we now have them, that Origen's pronunciation of Hebrew, even
after making all due allowance for a difference in the pronunciation
of the (ireek and for changes in the Hebrew text, must ha\ e been, in
many respects, quite different from ours.
^^ ()v(\f<Tfj.io0. I represent the diphthong oii at the beginning of
a word by " w."
■* The first and second books of Esdras here referred to are not
the apocryphal books known by that name, but Ezra and Nehemiah,
which in tlie Hebrew canon formed but one book, as Origen says
here, but which in the LXX were separated (see above, Bk. HI.
chap. 10, note 4). Esdras is simply the form which the word Ezra
assumes in Greek.
<■ Whether this sentence closed Origen's discussion of the Hebrew
canon, or whether he went on to mention the other apoci-yphal books,
we cannot tell. The latter seems intrinsically much more probable,
for it is difficult to understand the insertion of the Maccabees in this
connection, and the omission of all the others; for the Maccabees,
as is clear from the words ffio 5t Toiiroji' errri ra MaitKapaiica, are
not reckoned by Origen among the twenty-two books as a |)art of
the Hebrew canon. At the same time, it is hardly conceivable that
Eusebius should have broken oflTthus, in the midst of a passage, with-
out any explanation; though it is, of course, not impossible that he
gives only the first sentence of the new paragraph on the books -if
VI. 25-]
ORIGEN ON THE SCRIPTURES.
273
3 In his first book on Matthew's Gospel,"
maintaining the Canon of the Chnrch, he
testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writ-
ing as follows :
4 '' Among the four Gospels," which are the
only indisputable ones in the Church of God
imder heav^en, I have learned by tradition that
the first was written by Matthew, who was once
a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus
Christ, and it was prepared for the converts
from Judaism, and i)ul)lished in the Hebrew
5 language.* The second is by Mark, who
composed it according to the instructions of
Peter," who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges
him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at
Babylon elected together with you, saluteth
6 you, and so doth Marcus, my son.' '" And
the third by Luke, the Gospel commended
by Paul,'^ and composed for Gentile converts.
Last of all that by John."^-
7 In the fifth book of his Expositions of
John's Gospel, he speaks thus concerning
the epistles of the apostles : '^
" But he who was * made sufficient to be a
minister of the New Testament, not of the let-
ter, but of the Spirit,'" that is, Paul, who 'fully
preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round
about even unto Illyricum,' ^^ did not write
to all the churches which he had instructed ;
and to those to which he wrote he sent but
8 few lines. ^"^ And Peter, on whom the Church
of Christ is built, ' against which the gates
of hell shall not prevail,' ^^ has left one acknowl-
edged epistle ; perhaps also a second, but this
the LXX, in order to show that the discussion of the Hebrew canon
closes, and a new subject is introduced at this point. But, however
that may be, it must be regarded as certain that Origen did not
reckon the books of the Maccabees as a part of the Hebrew canon,
and on the other hand, that he did reckon those books, as well as
others (if not all) of the books given in the LXX, as inspired Scrip-
ture. This latter fact is proved by his use of these books indiscrimi-
nately with those of the Hebrew canon as sources for dogmatic proof
te.xts, and also by his e.xpress citation of at least some of them as
Scripture (cf. on this subject, Redepenning, p. 235 sq.). We must
conclude, therefore, that Origen did not adopt the Hebrew canon as
his own, but that he states it as clearly as he does in this place, in
order to bring concretely before the minds of his readers the differ-
ence between the canon of the Jews and the canon of the Christians,
who looked upon the LXX as the more authoritative form of the
Old Testament. Perhaps he had in view the same purpose that led
him to compare the Hebrew text and the LXX in his Hexapla (see
chap. 16, note 8).
8 On Origen's Commentary on Matthew, see chap. 36, note 4.
The fragment given here by Eusebius is all that is extant of the
first book of the commentary.
'' Compare Origen's Ho»i. I. in Lucavi: Ecclcsia giiainor hnhct
evangclia, kceresea. phirima ; and iniilii conaii sitni scribcre,
scd et multi conati sunt ordinare : guatnor tantum evangelia siint
probata, &c. Compare also Irenaeus, Adv. Hier. \\\. 11, 8, where
the attempt is made to show that it is impossible for the Gospels to
be either more or fewer in number than four; and the Muratorian
Fragment where the four Gospels are named, but the number four is
not represented as in itself the necessary number; also Tertullian's
Adv. Marc. IV. 2, and elsewhere.
* See Bk. IH. chap. 24, note 5.
^ See Bk. H. chap. 15, note 4. •" i Pet. v. 13.
" See Bk. HL chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Origen refers here to
2 Cor. viii. 18, where, however, it is clear that the reference is not
to any specific Gospel any more than in the passages referred to
above, \W. 4, note 15. '- See Bk. \\\. chap. 24.
13 This fragment from the fifth book of Origen's commentary on
John is extant only in this chapter. The context is not preserved.
'* 2 Cor. iii. 6. '" See Bk. HI. chap. 24, note 2.
15 Rom. XV. 19. " Matt. xvi. 18.
VOL. I.
is doubtful.'** Why need we speak of him 9
who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus,'^
John, who has left us one Gospel,^' though he
confessed that he might write so many that the
world could not contain them ?^^ And he wrote
also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to
keep silence and not to write the words
of the seven thunders.-^ He has left also 10
an epistle of very few lines ; perhaps also
a second and third ; but not all consider them
genuine, and together they do not contain a
hundred lines."
In addition he makes the following state- 11
ments in regard to the Epistle to the He-
brews ^ in his Homilies upon it :
" That the verbal style of the epistle entitled
'To the Hebrews,' is not rude like the language of
the apostle, who acknowledged himself ' rude in
speech,' ^"' that is, in expression ; but that its dic-
tion is purer Greek, any one who has the power
to discern differences of phraseology will ac-
knowledge. Moreover, that the thoughts of 12
the epistle are admirable, and not inferior
to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one
who carefully examines the apostolic text-^
will admit." Farther on he adds : 13
" If I gave my opinion, I should say that
the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the dic-
tion and phraseology are those of some one who
remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote
down at his leisure what had been said by his
teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this
epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this.
For not without reason have the ancients
handed it down as Paul's. But who wrote 14
the epistle, in truth, God knows. The state-
ment of some who have gone before us is that
Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the
epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of
the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it." But let this
suffice on these matters.
1* On the first and second Epistles of Peter, see Bk. HL chap.
3, notes i and 4. ''■' See John xiii. 23.
-" On John's Gospel, see Bk. HL chap. 24, note i; on the
Apocalypse, note 20; and on the epistles, notes 18 and 19 of the same
chapter.
-1 See John xxi. 25.
22 See Rev. x. 4.
23 Upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Origen's treatment of
it, see Bk. HL chap. 3, note 17. The two extracts given here by
Eusebius are the only fragments of Origen's Homilies on the Epistle
to the Hebrews now extant. Four brief Latin fragments of his
commentary upon that epistle are preserved in the first book of
Pamphilus' Defense of Origen, and are printed by Lommatzsch in
Vol. V. p. 297 sq. The commentaries (or "books," as they are
called) are mentioned only in that Defense. The catalogue of
Jerome speaks only of " eighteen homilies." We know nothing
about the extent or the date of composition of these homilies and
commentaries. ^^ 2 Cor. xi. 6.
2'' 7rpo<rextor, Ty[ avayvu»T€L Trj aTTO(TTo\iKrj. ayayvioaii meant
originally the act of reading, then' also that which is read. It thus
came to be used (like avayvioafj-a) of the pericope or text or section
of the Scripture read in church, and in the plural to designate the
church lectionaries, or service books. In the present case it is used
evidently in a wider sense of the text of Paul's writings as a whole.
This use of the two words to indicate, not simply the selection read
in church, but the text of a book or books as a whole, was not at all
uncommon, as may be seen from the examples given by Suicer,
although he does not mention this wider signification among the
uses of the word. See his Thesaurus, s.v.
2 74
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 26.
CHAPTER XXVI.
Hei-aclas becomes Bishop of Alexandria.
It was in the tenth year of the above-men-
tioned reign that Origen removed from Alexan-
dria to Ctesarea/ leaving the charge of the
catechetical school in that city to Heraclas.
Not long afterward Demetrius, bishop of the
church of Alexandria, died, having held the office
for forty-three full years," and Heraclas suc-
ceeded him. At this time Firmilianus,'^ bishop
of Csesarea in Cappadocia, was conspicuous.
CHAPTER XXVII.
How the Bishops rega?-ded Origen.
He was so earnestly affected toward Origen,
that he urged him to come to that country for
the benefit of the churches, and moreover he
visited him in Judea, remaining with him for
some time, for the sake of improvement in
divine things. And Alexander,^ bishop of Jeru-
salem, and Theoctistus,- bishop of Caesarea, at-
tended on him constantly," as their only teacher,
and allowed'* him to expound the Divine Scrip-
tures, and to perform the other duties pertain-
ing to ecclesiastical discourse.^ /
' The tenth year of Alexander Severus, 231 a.d. On Origen's
departure from Alexandria at this time, see below, p. 396. On Her-
aclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
2 On the episcopacy of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.
Forty-three years, beginning with 189 a.d., bring us down to 232 as
the date of his death, and this agrees excellently with the statements
of this chapter.
3 Firmilian, bishop of Casarea, the capital of Cappadocia (to be
distinguished from Caesarea in Palestine), was one of the most
famous prelates of his day in the Eastern Church. He was a friend
of Origen, as we learn from tlie next chapter, and took part in a
council called on account of the schism of Novatian (see chap. 46),
and also in councils called to consider the case of Paul of Samosata
(see Bk. VI 1. chaps. 28 and 30). He was one of the bishops whom
Stephen excommunicated because they rebaptized heretics (see Bk.
Vn. chap. 2, note 3, and chap. 5, note 4), and he wrote an epistle
upon this subject to Cyprian, which is extant in a Latin transla-
tion made by Cyprian himself {E/>. 74, «/. 75, in the collection of
Cyprian's epistles. See Diet, of Christ. Biog. I. 751, note). Basil
(de Spiritii Sancto, 29) refers to works (Adyut) left by Firmilian,
but none of them are extant except the single epistle mentioned,
nor do we hear from any other source that he was a writer. Jerome
does not mention him in his De vir. ill. The exact date of his
accession is unknown to us, as it very likely was to Eusebius also.
He was a bishop already in the tenth year of Alexander (231 A. P.),
or very soon afterward, and from Bk. VII. chap. 30, we learn that
he died at Tarsus on his way to Antioch to attend a council which
had been summoned to deal with I'aid of Samosata. This synod
was held about 265 A.D. (not in 272 as is commonly supposed; see
Bk. VH. chap. 29, note i), and it is at this time, therefore, that we
must put the death of Firmilian; so that he was bishop of Ca;sarea
at least some thirty-four years.
* On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.
2 On Theoctistus, bishop of Ca;sarea in Palestine, see chap. 19,
note 27.
^ A number of MSS., followed by Hcinichen and some others,
insert at this point w? f n-os t'milv (" so to speak ").
•■ The presbyter derived his authority to preach and teach only
from the bishop, and hence these bishops extended to (Jrigen, whom
they had ordained a presbyter, full liberty to preach and teach with-
in their dioceses.
^ Ttt AoiTrd TOW tKKA7;{Tta£rTtKOU Aoyou.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
The Pej'secution under Maximinus.
The Roman emperor, Alexander, having fin-
ished his reign in thirteen years, was succeeded
by Maximinus Ca^sar.^ On account of his hatred
toward the household of Alexander,- which
contained many believers, he began a persecu-
tion, commanding that only the rulers of the
churches should be put to death, as responsible
for the Gospel teaching. Thereupon Origen
composed his work On Martyrdom,^ and dedi-
cated it to Ambrose and Protoctetus,'' a presby-
ter of the parish of Caesarea, because in the
persecution there had come upon them both
unusual hardships, in which it is reported that
they were eminent in confession during the reign
of Maximinus, which lasted but three years.
Origen has noted this as the time of the perse-
cution in the twenty-second book of his Com-
mentaries on John, and in several epistles.'^
CHAPTER XXIX.
Fabianus, who 7vas wonderfully designated
Bishop of Rome by God.
GORDIANUS succeeded Maximinus as Ro- 1
man emperor;^ and Pontianus,- who had
1 Alexander Severus was murdered early in the year 235, and was
succeeded at once by his commanding general, the Thracian Maxi-
minus, or Caius Julius Verus Maximinus, as he called himself.
- The reference here is not to the immediate family of Alexander,
but to the court as a whole, his family in the widest sense, including
court officials, servants, &c. The favor which Alexander had
shown to the Christians (see chap. 21, note 8) is clearly seen in
the fact that there were so many Christians at court, as Eusebius
informs us here. This persecution was at first directed, Eusebius
tells us, solely against the heads of the churches (toi/; twi- tKK\y\ai.wv
ipX"'"'^"?), i.e. the bishops; and we might imagine only those bisliops
who had stood nearest Alexander and had been most favored by him
to be meant (Pontianus and Hippolytus of Rome were exiled, for
instance, at the very beginning of RIaximinus' reign, in the year 235;
see chap. 22, note i) ; for Maximinus' hostility to the Christians seems
to have been caused, not by religious motives, but by mere hatied of
his predecessor, and of eveiy cause to which he had shown favor. But
the persecution was not confined to such per.sons, as we learn from
tliis chapter, which tells us of the sufferings of AndMd.se and Proli c-
tetus, neither of whom was a bishop. It seems probable that most of
llie persecuting was not the result of positive efforts on the pari of
Maximinus, but rather of the superstitious hatred of the roninion
people, whose fears had been recently aroused by carthi]uakes and
who always attributed such calamities to the existence of the C hris-
tians. Of course under Maximinus they ha<l free rein, and could
persecute whenever they or the provincial authorities felt im lined
(cf. Firmilian's epistle to Cyprian, and Origen's E.xiwrt. ail Mutt.).
ICusebius tells us nothing of Origen's whereabouts at this lime: but
in Palladius^' Hist. Lmis. 147, it is said that Origen was given refuge
by Juliana in Caesarea in Cappadocia during some persecution, un-
doubtedly this one, if the rei>ort is true (sec chap. 17, note 4).
^ This work on martyrdom (eii; napTvpioi' vpoTpcmiKix; Aoyo!,
E.vhortatio ad Martyriiuit) is still extant, and is printed by
I.omrnatzsch in Vol. XX., p. 231-316. It is a most beautiful and
inspiring exhortation.
* On Ambrose, see chap. 18, note i. Protoctetus, a presbyter of
the church of Ca;sarea (apparently Palestinian Caesarea), is known
to us only from this passage.
'' On Origen's Commentary on John's Gospel, see chap. 24,
note I. No fragments of the twenty-second book are extant, nor any
of the epistles in which reference is made to this persecution.
' Gordianus the younger, grandson of Gordianus I., and nephew
for son?) of Gordianus II., became emperor afier the murder of
Halbinus and I'liiiienus, in July. 23S, at the age of lifteon years,
and reigned until early in the year 244, when he was murdered by
VI. 30.]
FABIANUS CHOSEN BISHOP OF ROME.
275
been bishop of the church at Rome for six years,
was succeeded by Anteros.'' After he had held
the office for a month, Fabianus ■* succeeded
2 him. 'I'hey say"' that Fabianus having come,
after the death of Anteros, with others from
the country, was staying at Rome, and that
while there he was chosen to the office through
a most wonderful manifestation of divine and
3 heavenly grace. For when all the brethren
had asseml)led to select by vote him who
should succeed to the episcopate of the church,
several renowned and honorable men were in
the minds of many, but Fabianus, although pres-
ent, was in the mind of none. But they relate
that suddenly a dove flying down lighted on his
head, resembling the descent of the Holy Spirit
on the Saviour in the form of a dove.
4 Thereupon all the people, as if moved by
one Divine Spirit, with all eagerness and
unanimity cried out that he was worthy, and
without delay they took him and placed him
upon the episcopal seat."
5 About that time Zebinus," bishop of An-
tioch died, and Babylas^ succeeded him.
the soldiers and succeeded by Philip. He is made by Eusebius
(both here and in the Chroii.) the direct successor of Maximinus,
simply because only two or three months elapsed between the death
of the latter and his own accession.
- On Pontianus, see chap. 23, note 3.
2 Both here and in the Chroti. the accession of Anteros is syn-
chronized with the accession of Gordianus, but as seen in chap. 23,
note 3, Pontianus was succeeded by Anteros in the first year of
Maximinus, i.e. in 235, — three years earlier, therefore, than the
date given by Eusebius. All the authorities agree in assigning only
one month and a few days to the episcopate of Anteros, and this is to be
accepted as correct. Of the life and character of Anteros we know
nothing.
■* Greek "ta/Siai'o?, though some MSS. read 'tAa^ioro?. The
Armenian and Hieronymian Chroii. call him Fabianus; the Liberian
catalogue, Fabius; Eutychius and the Alex, cat., Flabianus. Ac-
cording to chap. 39, he suffered martyrdom in the persecution of
Decius (250-251). Both versions of the Chron. assign thirteen
years to his episcopate, and this agrees fairly well with the notices
here and in chap. 39 (accession in 238 and death in 250 or 251).
But, as already seen, Eusebius is quite wrong in the dates which
he gives for the accession of these three bishops, and the siatements
of the Liberian catalogue are to be accepted, which put P'abian's
accession in January, 236, and his death in January, 250, after an
episcopate of fourteen years and ten days. The martyrdom of
Fabian rests upon good authority (cf. chap. 39, and Jerome's de
vir. ill. chap. 54, and especially Cyprian's Epistles, 3, al. g, and
30). From these epistles we learn that he was a man of ability and
virtue. He stands out more clearly in the light of history than most
of the early Roman bishops, but tradition has handed down a great
many unfounded stories in regard to him (see the article in the Diet,
of Christ. Biog.).
^ (fKKTi. Eusebius is our only authority for the following story.
Rufinus (VI. 21) tells a similar tale in connection with Zephyrinus.
^ On Zebinus, see chap. 23, note 4.
* Babylas occupies an illustrious place in the list of ancient mar-
tyrs (cf. Tillemont, Mem. HI. 400-409). Chrysostom devoted a
festal oration to his memory (/« sanctum Babylani contra ynlia-
n!t»t et contra Gentiles) ; while Jerome, Epiphanius, Sozomen,
Theodoret, and others make honorable mention of him. There are
extant the Acta Babylip (spurious), which, however, confound him
with a martyr who suflered under Numerian. The legends in re-
gard to Babylas and to the miracles performed by his bones are very
numerous (see Tillemont, I.e.). He is identified by Chrysostom and
others with the bishop mentioned by Eusebius in chap. 34, and there
is no good reason to doubt the identification (see Harnack, Zeit des
Ignatius, p. 48). The fact of his martyrdom under Decius (see
chap. 39) is too well attested to admit of doubt; though upon the
manner of it, not all the traditions are agreed, Eusebius reporting
that he died in prison, Chrysostom that he died by violence. The
account of Eusebius seems the most reliable. The date of his acces-
sion is unknown, but there is no reason to doubt that it took place
during the reign of Gordian (238-244), as Eusebius here seems to
imply; though it is true that he connects it closely with the death
of Demetrius, which certainly took place not later than 232 (see
And in Alexandria Heraclas,^ having received
the episcopal office after Demetrius,'" was suc-
ceeded in the charge of the catechetical school
by Dionysius," who had also been one of Ori-
gen's pupils.
CHAPTER XXX.
The Pupils of Origen.
While Origen was carrying on his customary
duties in Cffisarea, many pupils came to him not
only from the vicinity, but also from other coun-
tries. Among these Theodorus, the same that
was distinguished among the bishops of our
day under the name of Gregory,' and his brother
above, Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4). There is no warrant for carrying
the accession of Babylas back so far as that.
" On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
1" On the episcopate of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.
" On Dionysius, see chap. 40, note i.
1 Our sources for a knowledge of the life of Gregory, who is
known as Gregory Thaumaturgus ("wonder-worker"), are numer-
ous, but not all of them reliable. He is mentioned by Eusebius here
and in Bk. VII. chaps. 14 and 28, and a brief account of his life
and writings is given by Jerome (yde vir. ill. chap. 65), who adds
some particulars not mentioned by Eusebius. There is also extant
Gregory's Panegyrical Oration in praise of Origen, which contains
an outline of the earlier years of his life. Gregory of Nyssa about
a century later wrote a life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, which is still
extant, but which is full of marvelous stories, and contains little that
is trustworthy. Gregory's fame was very great among his contem-
poraries and succeeding generations, and many of the Fathers have
left brief accounts of him, or references to him which it is not neces-
sary to mention here. He was a native of Neo-Cassarea in Pontus
(according to Gregory Nyssa), the same city of which he was after-
ward bishop, was of wealthy parentage, and began the study of law
when quite young (see his own Orat. Paneg. chap. 5). Coming to
Ccesarea, in Palestine, on his way to Berytus, where he and his
brother Athenodorus were to attend a school of law, he met Origen,
and was so attracted by him that he and his brother remained in
Caesarea five years (according to Eusebius and Jerome) and studied
logic, physics, mathematics, ethics, Greek philosophy, and theology
with him (see his Orat.). At the end of this time the brothers
returned to Pontus, and afterwards were made bishops, Gregory of
Neo-Caesarea, his native place; Athenodorus of some unknown city
(Eusebius here and in VII. 14 and 28 says only that they were both
bishops of churches in Pontus) . Of the remarkable events connected
with the ordination of Gregory, which are told by Gregory of Nyssa,
it is not necessary to speak here. He was a prominent scholar and
writer, and a man universally beloved and respected for his deep
piety and his commanding ability, but his fame rested chiefly upon
the reports of his miracle-working, which were widespread. The
prodigies told of him are numerous and marvelous. Eusebius is
silent about this side of his career (whether because of ignorance or
incredulity we cannot tell, but the latter seems most probable), but
Jerome refers to his fame as a miracle-worker, Gregory of Nyssa's
]'ita, is full of it, and Basil and other later writers dwell upon it.
What the foundation for all these traditions was we do not know.
He was a famous missionary, and seems to have been remarkably
successful in converting the pagans of his diocese, which was almost
wholly heathen when he became bishop. This great missionary
success may have given rise to the tales of supernatural power, some
cause above the ordinary being assumed by the common people as
necessary to account for such results. Miracles and other super-
natural phenomena were quite commonly assumed in those days
as causes of conversions — especially if the conversions themselves
were in any way remarkable (cf. e.g. the close of the anonymous
Dialogue with Herbaniis, a Jew). Not only the miracles, but also
many other events reported in Gregory of Nyssa's Vita, must be
regarded as unfounded; e.g. the account of a long period of study in
Alexandria of which our more reliable sources contain no trace.
The veneration in which Gregory held Origen is clear enough from
his panegyric, and the great regard which Origen cherished for
Gregory is revealed in his epistle to the latter, written soon after
Gregory's arrival in Neo-Csesarea, and still preserved in the Philo-
calia, chap. 13. The works of Gregory known to us are his Pane-
gyrical Oration in praise of Origen, delivered in the presence of
tire latter and of a great multitude before Gregory's departure from
Caesarea, and still extant; a paraphrase of the book of Ecclesiastes,
mentioned by Jerome (I.e.), and likewise extatit; several epistles
referred to by Jerome {I.e.), only one of which, his so-called Canoni-
cal Epistle, addressed to an anonymous bishop of Pontus, is still
preserved; and finally a trinitarian creed, or confession of faith,
T 2
276
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 30.
Athenodorus,^ we know to have been especially
celebrated. Finding them deeply interested in
Greek and Roman learning, he infused into them
a love of philosophy, and led them to exchange
their old zeal for the study of divinity. Remain-
ing with him five years, they made such progress
in divine things, that although they were still
young, both of them were honored with a bish-
opric in the churches of Pontus.
CHAPTER XXXI.
Africantis,
1 At this time also Africanus,^ the writer of
the books entitled Cesti, was well known.
which is given by Gregory of Nyssa in his Vita, and whose genu-
ineness has been warmly disputed (e.g. by Lardner, Works, II.
p. 634 sq.) ; but since Caspari's defense of it in his Gesch. d. Taiif-
symbols itnd der Glaitbensregel,'\i?, authenticity may be regarded
as established. These four writings, together with some works
falsely ascribed to Gregory, are translated in The Anie-Nicoie
Fathers, Am. ed., Vol. VI. p. 1-80. Original Greek in Migne's
Pair. Gr. X. 983-1343. See also Ryssel's Gregoriits Thaiiina-
turgns. Sein Leben uiid seitie Schriftcu; Leipzig, 1880. Ryssel
gives (p. 65-79) ^ German translation of two hitherto unknown
Syriac writings of Gregory, one on the equality of Father, Son, and
Spirit, and the other on the passibility and impassibility of God.
Gregory's dates cannot be fixed with exactness; but as he cannot
have seen Origen in Caesarea until after 231, and was very young
when he met him there, he must have been born as late as the second
decade of the third century. As he was with Origen at least five
years, he can hardly have taken his farewell of him until after the
persecution of Maximinus (i.e. after 238), for we cannot suppose
that he pronounced his panegyrical oration during that persecution.
He speaks in the first chapter of that oration of not having delivered
an oration for eight years, and this is commonly supposed to imply
that it was eight years since he had begun to study with Origen, in
which case the oration must be put as late as 239, and it must be
assumed, if Eusebius' five years are accepted as accurate, that he
was absent for some three years during that period (perhaps while
the persecution was going on). But the eight years cannot be
pressed in this connection, for it is quite possible that they may
have been reckoned from an earlier time, perhaps from the time
when he began the study of law, which was before he met Origin
(see Panegyr. chaps, i and 5). If we were to suppose the order
followed by Eusebius strictly chronological, we should have to put
Gregory's acquaintance with Origen into the reign of Gordian (238-
244). The truth is, the matter cannot be decided. He is said by
Gregory of Nyssa to have retired into concealment during the perse-
cution of Decius, and to have returned to hLs charge again after its
close. He was present with his brother Athenodorus at one of the
councils called to consider the case of Paul of Samosata (see Bk.
VII. chap. 28), but was not present at the final one at which Paul
was condemned (see ibid, chaps. 29 and 30, and note 2 on the latter
chapter). This one was held about 265 (see ibid. chap. 29, note i),
and hence it is likely that Gregory was dead before that date.
2 Athenodorus is known to us only as the brother of Gregory and
bishop of some church or churches in Pontus (see Bk. VII. chaps.
14 and 28).
■ Julius Africanus (as he is called by Jerome) was one of the
most learned men of the Ante-Nicene age. Not much is known of
his life, though he seems to have resided, at least for a time, in Em-
maus, a town of Palestine, something over twenty miles from Jerusa-
lem (not the Emmaus of Luke xxiv. 13, which was but seven or
eight miles from the city), for we hear in the Chroit., and in Jerome's
de vir. ill. c. 63, of his going on an embassy to the Emperor Helio-
g.abalus, and securing the rebuilding of the ruined city Emmaus
under the name of Nicopolis, which it henceforth bore. He does
rot appear to have been a clergyman, or at any rate not a bishop ;
for he is spoken of as such by no early authority, and he is addressed
by Origen in an extant epistle, which must have been written toward
the close of his life, simply as " brother." His dates cannot be
fixed with any exactness. He must have been already a prominent
man when he went on an embassy to the emperor (between 218 and
222). He must have been considerably older than Origen, for in his
epistle to him he calls him " son," and that although Origen was at
the time beyond middle life himself. Unless Eusebius is mistaken,
he was still alive and active in the time of Gordian (238-244). Hut
if he was enough older than Origen to .address him as " son," he can
hardly have lived much beyond that reign. He seems to have been
a Christian philosopher and scholar rather than an ecclesiastic, and
took no such part in the church affairs of the time as to leave men-
tion of his name in the accounts of the synods of his day. He was
There is extant an epistle of his to Origen,
expressing doubts ^ of the story of Susannah in
Daniel, as being spurious and fictitious.
Origen answered this very fully. Other 2
works of the same Africanus which have
reached us are his five books on Chronology, a
work accurately and laboriously prepared. He
says in this that he went to Alexandria on ac-
count of the great fame of Heraclas,^ who ex-
celled especially in philosophic studies and
other Greek learning, and whose appointment to
the bishopric of the church there we have
quite a traveler, as we learn from his own writings, and had the
well-deserved reputation of being one of the greatest scholars of the
age. Eusebius mentions four works left by him, the Cesti, the
Chronicon, and the epistles to Origen and to Aristides. Jerome
{I.e.) mentions only the last three, but Photius (Cod. 34) refers to
all four. The Cesti {Kecnoi, "embroidered girdles") seems to
have derived its name from the miscellaneous character of its con-
tents, which included notes on geography, the art of war, medicine,
agriculture, &c. It is said by Syncellus to have been composed of
nine books: Photius mentions fourteen, Suidas twenty-four. It is
no longer extant, but numerous scattered fragments have been pre-
served. Its authenticity has been doubted, chiefly because of its
purely secular character, and the nature of some of the notes, which
do not seem worthy of the clear-headed and at the same time Chris-
tian scholar. But the external evidence, which is not unsupported
by the internal, is too strong to be set aside, and we must conclude
that the work is genuine. The extant fragments of it are given
in various works on mathematics, agriculture, etc. (see Richard-
son's Bibliographical Synopsis, p. 68). The epistle of Africanus
to Origen is the only one of his writings preserved in a complete
form. It seems that Origen, in a discussion with a certain Bas-
sus (see Origen's epistle to Africanus, § 2), at which Africanus
was present, had quoted from that part of the Book of Daniel which
contains the apocryphal story of Susannah. Africanus afterward
wrote a brief epistle to Origen, in which he contended that the story
is not authentic, urging among other arguments differences in style
between it and the rest of the book, and the fact that the story is not
found in Hebrew, and that certain phrases show that it was com-
posed originally in Greek. Origen replied at considerable length,
maintaining the authenticity of the passage, and thereby showing
himself inferior to Africanus in critical judgment. Origen's reply
was written from Nicomedia (see § i), where he was staying with
Ambrose (see § 15). It seems probable that this visit to Nicomedia
was made on his way to or from his second visit to Athens (see next
chapter, note 4). Africanus' greatest work, and the one which
brought him most fame, was his Clironicon, in five books. The
work is no longer extant, but considerable fragments of it have
been preserved (e.g. in Eusebius' Pr<ep. Evang. X. 10, and De»i.
Evang. VIII., and especially in the Clironograpliia of Syncel-
lus) , and the Chronico?i of Eusebius which is really based upon it, so
that we are enabled to gain a very fair idea of its original form. As de-
scribed by Photius, it was concise, but omitted nothing worthy of men-
tion, beginning with the creation and coming down to the reign of
Macrinus. It actually extended to the fourth year of Hcliogabahis
(221), as we .see from a quotation made by .Syncellus. The work seems
to have been caused by the common desire of the Christians (exhibited
by Tatian, Clement of Alexander, and others) to prove in their de-
fense of Christianity the antiquity of the Jewish religion, and thus
take away the accusation of novelty brought against Christianity by
its opponents. Africanus apparently aimed to produce a universal
chronicle and history which should exhibit the .synchronism of
events in the history of the leading nations of the world, and thus
furnish solid groinid for Christian apologists to build ujion. It was
the first attempt of the kind, and became the foundation of Christian
chronicles for many centuries. The time at which it was written is
determined with sufficient accuracy by the date at which the chron-
ological table closes. Salmon (in the Diet, of Christ. Iliog.)
remarks that it must have been completed early in the year 221, for
it did not contain the names of the victors in the Olympic games of
the 250th Olympiad, which took place in that year (as we learn
from the list of victors copied by Eusebius from Africanus). It is
said by Eusebius, just Itclow, that Africanus reports in this work
that he had visited Alexandria on account of the great celebrity of
Ileraclas. This is very sur|>rising, for we should hardly have ex-
pected Heraclas' fame to have attracted such a man to Alexandria
until after Origen had left, and he had himself become the head of
the school. On the fourth writing mentionetl by Eusebius, the
epistle to Aristides, see above, l!k. 1. chap. 7, note 2. The frag-
ments of Africanus' works, with the exce])tion of the Cesti, have
been printed, with copious and valuable notes, by Routh, Rel. Sac.
II. 221-509; English translation in the Ante-Nicene P'athers, Am.
ed., VI. 125-140.
* oTTopoiJi'To?. A very mild way of putting his complete rejection
of the story !
2 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
VI. 3i-]
THE ERROR OF BERYLLUS.
277
3 already mentioned. There is extant also
another epistle from the same Africanus to
Aristides on the supposed discrepancy between
Matthew and Luke in the Genealogies of Christ.
In this he shows clearly the agreement of the
evangelists, from an account which had come
down to him, which we have already given in
its proper place in the first book of this work."*
CHAPTER XXXII.
The Commentaries ivhich Origen composed in
Ccesarea in Palestine.
1 About this time Origen prepared his
Commentaries on Isaiah^ and on Ezekiel.^
Of the former there have come down to us thirty
books, as far as the third part of Isaiah, to the
vision of the beasts in the desert ; ^ on Ezekiel
twenty-five books, which are all that he
2 wrote on the whole prophet. Being at
that time in Athens,* he finished his work
on Ezekiel and commenced his Commentaries
on the Song of Songs,® which he carried forward
to the fifth book. After his return to Csesarea,
« In Bk. I. chap. 7.
1 " About this time" refers us still to the reign of Gordian (238-
244). Eusebius mentions only the commentaries on Isaiah, but
Jerome refers also to homilies and notes. The thirty books which
were extant in Eusebius' time extended to XXX. 6, as we are in-
formed here. Whether the commentary originally went beyond
this point we do not know. There are extant only two brief Latin
fragments from the first and eighth books of the commentary, and
nine fiomilies (the last incomplete) in a Latin version by Jerome;
printed by Lommat/sch, XIII. 235-301.
2 Eusebius records that Origen wrote only twenty-five books of
a commentary on Ezekiel. The form of expression would seem to
imply that these did not cover the whole of Ezekiel, but a fragment
of the twentieth book, extant in the eleventh chapter of the Philo-
calia, deals with the thirty-fourth chapter of the prophecy, so that
the twenty-five books must have covered at any rate most of the
ground. The catalogue of Jerome mentions twenty-nine books and
twelve homilies, but the former number must be a mistake, for
Eusebius' explicit statement that Origen wrote but twenty-five books
can hardly be doubted. There are extant only the Greek fragment
of the twentieth book referred to above, fourteen homilies in the
Latin version of Jerome, and a few extracts ; all printed by Lom-
matzsch, XIV. 1-232.
■> i.e. to Isa. xxx. 5, where the LXX reads 17 opacris tui/ rerpa-
TToSiov Tuii' 61' rfj epriixo), which are the exact words used by Eusebius.
Our English versions, both the authorized and revised, read, "The
burden of the beasts of the South." The Hebrew will bear either
rendering.
■• The cause of this second visit to Athens we do not know, nor
the date of it; although if Eusebius is to be relied upon, it took place
during the reign of Gordian (238-244). He must have remained
some time in Athens and have had leisure for study, for he finished
his commentary on Ezekiel and wrote five books 01 his commentary
on Canticles. This visit to Athens is to be distinguished from the
one referred to in chap. 23, because it is probable that Origen found
the Nicopolis copy of the Old Testament (mentioned in chap. 16)
on the occasion of a visit to Achaia, and this visit is apparently too
late, for he seems to have finished his Hcxapla before this time;
and still further, the epistle in which he refers to spurious accounts
of his disputation at Athens (see Jerome's Apol. adv. Rnf. II. i8),
complains also of Demetrius and of his own excommunication, which,
as Redepenning remarks, points to a date soon after that excommuni-
cation took place, and not a number of years later, when Demetrius
had been long dead.
8 From the seventh chapter of the PJiilocalia we learn that Ori-
gen, in his youth, wrote a small book (/aixpos ro^to^) upon Canticles,
of which a single brief fragment is preserved in that chapter. The
catalogue of Jerome mentions ten books, two books written early,
and two homilies. Eusebius mentions only the commentary, of
which, he says, five books were written in Athens, and five more in
Csesarea. The prologue and four books are extant in a Latin trans-
lation by Rufinus, and two homilies in a translation by Jerome; be-
sides these, some Greek extracts made by Procopius, — all printed by
Lommatzsch, XIV. 233; XV, 108.
he completed these also, ten books in num-
ber. But why should we give in this history 3
an accurate catalogue of the man's works,
which would require a separate treatise?'' we
have furnished this also in our narrative of the
life of Pamphilus,^ a holy martyr of our own
time. After showing how great the diligence of
Pamphilus was in divine things, we give in that
a catalogue of the library which he collected of
the works of Origen and of other ecclesiastical
writers. Whoever desires may learn readily
from this which of Origen's works have reached
us. But we must proceed now with our history. /
CHAPTER XXXIII.
The Error of Beryllus.
Beryllus,^ whom we mentioned recently 1
as bishop of Bostra in Arabia, turned aside
from the ecclesiastical standard^ and attempt-
ed to introduce ideas foreign to the faith.
He dared to assert that our Saviour and Lord
did not pre-exist in a distinct form of be-
ing of his own ^before his abode among men,
and that he does not possess a divinity of his
own,* but only that of the Father dwelling
in him. Many bishops carried on investi- 2
gations and discussions with him on this
matter, and Origen having been invited with the
others, went down at first for a conference with
him to ascertain his real opinion. But when he
understood his views, and perceived that they
were erroneous, having persuaded him by argu-
ment, and convinced him by demonstration, he
brought him back to the true doctrine, and re-
6 iSi'a? hi6\j.e.vov o^xoAt);.
■^ On Pamphilus, see Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40. On Eusebius'
Life of Pamphilus, see the Prolegomena, p. 28, above.
' Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia (mentioned above, in chap.
20), is chiefly noted on account of the heresy into which he fell, and
from which Origen won him back, by convmcing him of his error.
According to chap. 20, he was a learned and cultured man, and
Jerome {de vir. ill. c. 60) says of him, gloriose rexisset ecclesiam.
We do not know his dates, but we may gather from this chapter that
the synod which was called on his account convened during the
reign of Gordian (238-244), and apparently toward the close of the
reign. Our sources for a knowledge of the heresy of Beryllus are very
meager. We have only the brief passage in this chapter; a fragment
of Origen's commentary on Titus (Lommatzsch, V. 287), which un-
doubtedly refers to Beryllus' error, though he is not mentioned by
name; and finally, a single sentence in Jerome's dc vir. ill. c. 60
{Christum ante incarnatioiicin regat), which, however, is appar-
ently no more than his own interpretation of Eusebius' words. Our
sources have been interpreted very differently, some holding Beryl-
lus to have been a Patripassian, others classing him with the Arte-
monites (see above, Bk. V. chap. 28). He was, at any rate, a
Monarchian, and his position, not to enter here into details, seems
to have been that our Lord did not pre-exist as an independent be-
ing; but that, with the incarnation, he, who had previously been
identified with the irarpiK)) ^eorr)?, became a distinct being, pos-
sessed of an independent existence (see Dorner's Person of
Christ, Div. I. Vol. II. p. 35 sq., Edinburgh edition). According
to this chapter and chap. 20, Beryllus was the author of numerous
treatises and epistles, which were extant in Eusebius' time. Ac-
cording to Jerome (I.e.), he wrote, varia opiiscula et niaxittte
cpistolas, in quibns Origeni gratias agit. Jerome reports, also,
that there were extant in his time epistles of Origen, addressed to
Beryllus, and a dialogue between Origen and Beryllus. All traces
of these epistles and other works have perished.
- 10V iKK\y\<ji.a.(jTi.Kov Kavova: i.e. the rule of faith.
3 fi!) Trpouc^ecrTai/ai Kar' \,hia.v ovaias 7r«pf)'pa(^>i;',
* SedTrjTa iSt'oc,
278
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. z^.
stored him to his former sound opinion.
3 There are still extant writings of Beryllus and
of the synod held on his account, which con-
tain the questions put to him by Origen, and the
discussions which were carried on in his parish,
as well as all the things done at that time.
4 The elder brethren among us ^ have handed
down many other facts respecting Origen
which I think proper to omit, as not pertaining
to this work. But whatever it has seemed neces-
sary to record about him can be found in the
Apology in his behalf written by us and Pam-
philus, the holy martyr of our day. We pre-
pared this carefully and did the work jointly on
account of faultfinders.^
CHAPTER XXXIV.
Philip Ccesar.
GoRDiANUS had been Roman emperor for six
years when Philip, with his son Philip, succeeded
him.^ It is reported that he, being a Christian,
desired, on the day of the last paschal vigil, to
share with the multitude in the prayers of the
Church," but that he was not permitted to enter,
by him who then presided,^ until he had made
^ TMV Kad' ri/xa^ 01 npea^pvTfpoi. It seems necessary here to take
the word npea-ftincpo^ in an unofficial sense, which is, to say the least,
exceptional at this late date.
'■• On this Defense of Origen, written jointly by Pamphilus and
Eusebius, see above, p. 36.
1 The younger Gordian reigned from the summer of 238 until
early in the year 244, wlien he was murdered by the soldiers, and
succeeded by his praetorian prefect, Philip of Arabia, who took the
name Marcus Julius Philippus, and reigned u»til 249, when he was
conquered and succeeded by Decius. His son Philip, who was seven
years old at the time of his father's accession, was immediately pro-
claimed Caesar and afterward given the title of Augustus. He bore
the name Marcus Julius Philippus Severus, and was slain at the
time of his father's death.
2 There has been much dispute as to Philip's relation to Christi-
anity. Eusebius is the first one known to us to represent him as a
Christian, and he gives the report only upon the authority of oral
tradition {joxnov KaTe;^eL Aoyo? vpttTTtaror oi'ra). Jerome {de I'tf.
HI. 54) states explicitly that Philip was the first Christian emperor
(qui primus de regibics Romanis christianus ficit) , and this be-
came common tradition in the Church. At the same time it must
be noticed that Eusebius does not himself state that Philip was a
Christian, — he simply records a tradition to that effect; and in his
Vita, Const. I. 3 he calls Constantine the first Christian emperor.
Little reliance can be placed upon Jerome's explicit statement, for
he seems only to be repeating as certain what Eusebius reported as
possible. The only things known to us which can or could have
been urged in support of the alleged fact that Philip was a Christian
are his act recorded in this chapter and the letter written to him by
Origen, as recorded in chap. 36. Moreover, it happens to be the
fact that no heathen writer hints that he was a Christian, and we
know that he celebrated games in Rome with pagan rites and great
pomp. It seems, on the whole, probable that Philiii sliowed himself
favorable to Christianity, and perhaps superstitiously desired to gain
the favor of the Christians' God, and hence went through some such
process as Eusebius describes in this chapter, looking ujion it merely
as a sort of sacrifice to be offered to this God as he would offer other
sacrifices to other gods. It is quite conceivable that he may have
done this much, and this would be quite enough to start the report,
after his death, that he had been a Christian secretly, if not openly;
andfrom this to the tradition that he was unconditionally the first
Christian emperor is but a step. Some ground for the common tra-
dition must be assumed, but our sources do not warrant us in be-
lieving more than has been thus suggested as possible. For a full
discussion of the question, sec Tillemont, Hist, dcs Emp. III. y.
494 sq.
^ Chrysostom {De St. Pah. c. Ceiitcs, Tom. I.) and T.eontiiis of
Antioch (quoted in the C/tron. pasch.) identify the bishop referred
to here with Babylas, bishop of Antioch (see above, chap. 29, note
8). E.iscbius' silence as to the name of the bishop looks as if he
were ignorant on the matter, but there is nothing inherently improb-
confession and had numbered himself among
those who were reckoned as transgressors and
who occupied the place of penance.* For if he
had not done this, he would never have been
received by him, on account of the many crimes
which he had committed. It is said that he
obeyed readily, manifesting in his conduct a
genuine and pious fear of God.
CHAPTER XXXV.
Dionysius succeeds Heraclas in the Episcopate.
In the third year of this emperor, Heraclas ^
died, having held his office for sixteen years,
and Dionysius" received the episcopate of the
churches of Alexandria.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Other Works of Origen.
1
At this time, as the faith extended and our
doctrine was proclaimed boldly before all,^
Origen, being, as they say, over sixty years old,-
and having gained great facility by his long prac-
tice, very properly permitted his public discourses
to be taken down by stenographers, a thing
which he had never before allowed. He 2
also at this time composed a work of eight
books in answer to that entitled True Discourse,
which had been written against us by Celsus^
able in the identification, which may therefore be looked upon as
very likely correct.
* That is, the place assigned to penitents: nerai-oia? \mpav.
Christians who had committed flagrant transgressions were excluded
from communion and required to go through a course of penance,
more or less severe according to their oflense, before they could be
received again into the Church. In some cases they were excluded
entirely from the services for a certain length of time; in other cases
they were allowed to attend a part of the services, but in no case
ciiuld they partake of the communion. In the fourth century a
regular system of discipline grew up, and the penitents {pccni-
tentes) were divided into various classes, — mourners, hearers, and
kneelers; the first of whom were excluded entirely from the church,
while the last two were admitted during a part of the service. The
statement in the present case is of the most general character.
Whether the place which he was obliged to take was without or
within the church is not indicated. Upon the whole subject of an-
cient church discipline, see Bingham's Antiquities. Bk. XVI., and
the article Penitence in Smith's Diet, cf Cliristinit Antiq.
1 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2. The third year of Philip's
reign extended from the summer of 246 to the summer of 247, so that
if Heraclas became bishop in 232, he cannot have held office fully
sixteen years. The agreement, however, is so close as to occasion
no difficulty. ^ On I)ionysius, see chap. 40, note i.
^ Toi) Kn.^^ r]fxa<; TrapoL 7ra(7t Ad-yor,
- Since Origen was born in the year 185 or 186, this must h.ave
been as late as 245. Most if no* all of the homilies of Origen, which
are now preserved, were probably delivered after this time, and
reported, as Eusebius says, by stenographers. The increasing
boldness of the Christians referred to here was apparently due to
their uncommonly comfortable condition under Philip.
•■* Of the personal history of Celsus, the first great literary oppo-
nent of Christianity, we know nothing with certainty, nor did Origen
know any more. He had heard that there were two persons of the
same name, the one living in the time of Nero, the other, whom he
identifies with his opponent, in the time of Hadrian and later, and
botli of them Epicurean philosophers (see contra Cels. I. 8). The
work of Celsus, however, was clearly the work, not of an Epicurean,
but of a Platonist, or at least of an eclectic philosopher, with a strong
leaning toward Platonism. The author wrote .about the middle of
the second century, probably in the reign of Marcus Aurclius (Keim
fixes the date of the work at 178 A.D.). The True Discourse
(aAiifli)? A070?) is no longer extant, but it can be reconstructed in
great part from Origcn's reply to it. It is seen to have been one of
VI. 37]
DISSENSION OF THE ARABIANS.
279
the Epicurean, and the twenty-five books on
the Gospel of Matthew/ besides those on the
Twelve Projihets, of which we have found
3 only twenty-five.'* There is extant also an
epistle" of his to the Emperor Philip, and
another to Sevcra his wife, with several others
to different persons. We have arranged in dis-
tinct books to the number of one hundred, so
that they might be no longer scattered, as many
the ablest and most philosophical attacks of ancient times, and to
have anticipated a great many arguments urged against Christianity
by modern unbelievers. Celsus was well acquainted with Chris-
tianity in its various forms and with its literature, and he set himaeif to
work with all his learning and skill to compose a complete reiu.a.ion
of the whole thing. He writes apparently less from a religious tnan
from a political jnotivc. He was an ardent patriot, and considered
paganism essential to the life of the State, and Christianity its neces-
sary antagonist. He undertakes first to show that Christianity is
historically untenable, and then that it is false from the standpoint
of philosophy and ethics. It is noticeable that it is not his desire to
exterminate Christianity completely, but to make peace with it; to
induce the Christians to C've up their claim to possess the only true
religion, and, with all their high ethics and lofty ideals, to join hands
with the upholders of the ancient religion in elevating the religious
ideas of the people, and thus benefiting the state. When we look
at his work in this light (and much misunderstanding has been caused
by a failure to do this), we must admire his ability, and respect his
motives. He was, however, by no means free from the superstitions
and prejudices of his age. The most important book upon the work
of Celsus is Keim's Cflsiis' H^a/ires IVort, Zurich, 1873, which
reconstructs, from Origen's reply, Celsus' work, and translates and
explains it. Origen's reply is philosophical and in parts very able,
but it must be acknowledged that in many places he does not suc-
ceed in answering his opponent. His honesty, however, must be
admired in letting his adversary always speak for himself. He at-
tempts to answer every argument urged by Celsus, and gives the
argument usually in Celsus' own words. The residt is that the work
is quite desultory in its treatment, and often weighted with unimpor-
tant details and tiresome repetitions. At the same time, it is full of
rich and suggestive thought, well worthy of Origen's genius, and
shows a deep appreciation of the true spiritual nature of Christianity.
The entire work of eight books is extant in the original Greek, and
is printed in all editions of Origen's works (Lommatzsch, Vol. XX.
p. 1-226), and is translated in the Ante-Niceiie Fathers, Am. ed.
Vol. IV. 395-669. It was one of Origen's latest works, as we are told
here by Eusebius, and was composed (as we learn from its preface)
at the urgent request of Ambrose, to whom also it was dedicated.
* The commentary on Matthew was written toward the close of
Origen's life, as Eusebius informs us here, a fact which is confirmed
by references in the work itself to m.any of his earlier commentaries,
"rhere are extant a single fragment from the first book (quoted in
chap. 25, above), one from the second book (quoted in the Philo-
cah'a, chap. 6), and Books X.-XVII. entire in the original Greek,
covering Matt. xiii. 36-xxii. 33. There are also extant numerous
notes, which may have been taken, some of them from the commen-
tary, and others from the homilies; and a Latin version of the com-
mentary covering Matt. xvi. 13-xxvii. (.See Lommatzsch, Vols.
III.-V.). The catalogue of Jerome mentions twenty-five books
and twenty-five homilies, and in the preface to his commentary on
Matthew, Jerome states that he had read the twenty-five books, but
elsewhere (in the prologue to his translation of Origen's homilies on
Luke; Migne, VII. 219) he speaks of thirty-six (or twenty-six)
books of the commentary, but this is doubtless a mistake (and so
Vallarsi reads vigititi qtiinque in the text). There is no reason to
think that Origen wrote more than twenty-five books, which must
have covered the whole Gospel (to judge from the portions extant).
The books which are preserved contain much that is interesting and
suggestive.
^ Jerome also mentions twenty-five books upon the twelve proph-
ets {in diipdcciin Prophctas viginti guinquc i^r\yit<jnav Origcnis
volHinina) , of which he had found a copy in the library of Caesarea,
transcribed by the hand of Pamphilus {de vir, ill. 75). The cata-
logue of Jerome enumerates two books on Hosea, two on Joel, six
on Amos, one on Jon.ah, two on Micah, two on Mahum, three on
Habakkuk, two on Zephaniah, one on Haggai, two on Zechariah,
two on Malachi; but in the preface to his commentary on Malachi,
Jerome mentions three books on that prophecy. Of all these books
only one fragment of the commentary on Hosea is extant, being
preserved in the Philocaiia, c. 8.
" These epistles to Philip and his wife Severa are no longer
extant, nor can we form an accurate idea of their contents. We are
reminded of Origen's interview with Mammsea, the mother of Alex-
ander Severus, mentioned in chap. 21. Whether he wrote in re-
sponse to a request from Philip is uncertain, but is not likely in
view of the silence of Eusebius. It is possible that the favor shown
by the emperor and his wife had led Origen to believe that they
might be won for the faith, and there is nothing surprising in his
addressing epistles to them with this idea. On Philip's relations to
Christianity, see chap, 34, note 2.
of these as we have been able to collect,^ which
have been preserved here and there by dif-
ferent persons. He wrote also to Fabi- 4
anus,** bishop of Rome, and to many other
rulers of the churches concerning his orthodoxy.
You have examples of these in the eighth book
of the Apology^ which we have written in his
behalf.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
The Dissension of the Arabians}
About the same time others arose in Arabia,
putting forward a doctrine foreign to the truth.
They said that during the present time the human
soul dies and perishes with the body, but that
at the time of the resurrection they will be
renewed together. And at that time also a
synod of considerable size assembled, and Ori-
gen, being again invited thither, spoke publicly
on the question with such effect that the opin-
ions of those who had formerly fallen were
changed.
' This collection of Origen's epistles made by Eusebius is no
longer extant. The catalogue of Jerome mentions " eleven books of
letters in all; two books in defense of his works." Only two epistles
are preserved entire, — the one to Julius Africanus (see chap. 31,
note i) ; the other to Gregory Thaumaturgus, written, apparently,
soon after the departure of the latter from Cajsarea (see chap. 30,
note i), for Gregory was, at the time it was written, still undecided
as to the profession which he should follow. In addition to these
two complete epistles, there are extant a sentence from a letter to
his father (quoted in chap. 2) ; also a fragment of an epistle to some
unknown person, describing the great zeal of his friend Ambrose
(see chap. 18, note i. The fragment is preserved by Suidas s. v.
'ilpiyefri';) ; also a fragment defending his study of heathen philoso-
phy (quoted in chap, ig, above) ; and two fragments in Latin, from
a letter addressed to some Alexandrian friends, complaining of the
alterations made by certain persons in the reports of disputations
which he had held with them (see chap. 32, note 4. The one frag-
ment is preserved by Jerome, in his A/o/. adv. Ruf. II. 18; the
other by Rufinus, in his apology for Origen). Of his epistles to
Fabian and others no trace remains.
8 On Fabian, see chap. 29, note 4. We do not know when this
letter to Fabian was written; but it cannot have been written in
consequence of Origen's condemnation by the Alexandrian synods
called by Demetrius, for they were held in 231 or 232, and Fabian
did not become bishop until 236. There must have been some later
cause, — perhaps a condemnation by a later synod of Alexandria,
perhaps only the prevalence of a report that Origen was heterodox,
which was causing serious suspicions in Rome and elsewhere. We
know that the controversies which raged so fiercely about his mem-
ory began even before his death.
3 On this Defense, see above, p. 36.
1 The exact nature of the heresy which is here described by
Eusebius is somewhat difficult to determine. It is disputed whether
these heretics are to be reckoned with the ffi'rjTOTra-uxiTat (whom
John of Damascus mentions in his de Hceres. c. 90, and to whom
Augustine refers, under the name of Arabici, in his de HrEres,
c. 83) , that is, those who taught the death of the soul with the body,
or with the iin->'oi|/uxiTat, who taught that the soul slept between the
death and the resurrection of the body. Redepenning, in a very
thorough discussion of the matter (II. 105 sq.), concludes that the
heresy to which Eusebius refers grew up under Jewish influence,
which was very strong in Arabia, and that it did not teach the death
(as Eusebius asserts), but only the slumber of the soul. He reckons
them therefore with the second, not the first, class mentioned. But
it seems to me that Redepenning is almost hypercritical in main-
taining that it is impossible that these heretics can have taught
that the soul died and afterward was raised again; for it is no more
impossible that they should have taught it than that Eusebius and
others should have supposed that they did. In fact, there does not
seem to be adequate ground for correcting Eusebius' statement,
which describes heretics who must distinctly be classed with the
Oi'r]TOTT(Tvx^rat. mentioned later by John of Damascus. We do not
know the date at which the synod referred to in this chapter was
held. We only know that it was subsequent to the one which dealt
with Beryllus, and therefore it must have been toward the close of
Philip's reign.
28o
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 38.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
The Heresy of the Elkesites.
Another error also arose at this time, called
the heresy of the Elkesites/ which was extin-
guished in the very beginning. Origen speaks
of it in this manner in a public homily on the
eighty-second Psalm : ^
"A certain man'^ came just now, puffed up
greatly with his own ability, proclaiming that
godless and impious opinion which has appeared
lately in the churches, styled ' of the Elkesites.'
I will show you what evil things that opinion
teaches, that you may not be carried away by
it. It rejects certain parts of every scripture.
Again it uses portions of the Old Testament and
the Gospel, but rejects the apostle * altogether.
It says that to deny Christ is an indifferent mat-
ter, and that he who understands will, under
necessity, deny with his mouth, but not in his
1 The Elkesites ("EAKeo-aiTai) were not a distinct sect, but " a
school scattered among all parties of the Judaeo-Christian Church."
They are described by Hippolytus {Phil. IX. 8-12) and by Epipha-
nius (in chap. 19 among the Essenes, in 30 amoni; the Ebionites,
and in 53 among the Sampsseans). We learn from Hippolytus that,
in the time of Callistus or soon afterward, a certain Alcibiades, a na-
tive of Apameia in Syria, brought to Rome a book bearing the name
of Elkesai ('HAxao-ai), which purported to contain a revelation,
made in the time of Trajan, by the Son of God and the Holy Spirit
in the form of angels, and teaching the forgiveness of all sins, even
the grossest, by means of belief in the doctrines of the book and
baptism performed with certain peculiar rites. The controversy in
regard to the forgiveness of gross sins committed after baptism was
raging high at this time in Rome, and Hippolytus, who took the
strict side, naturally opposed this new system of indulgence with
the greatest vigor. Among other doctrines taught in the book, was
the lawfulness of denying the faith in time of persecution, as told us
by Origen in this chapter, and by Epiphanius in chap. 19. The
book was strongly Ebionitic in its teaching, and bore striking resem-
blances to the Clementine Hovtilies and Recognitions. Its exact
relation to those writings has been disputed", but Uhlhorn {Homilien
und Recognitionen des Clemens Romanus) has shown conclu-
sively that it is older than the latter, and that it represents a type of
Ebionitic Christianity less modified than the latter by the influence
of Christianity. In agreement with the Ebionites, the Elkesites (as
all those were called who accepted the teachings of the book, to
whatever party they might belong) taught that Christ was a created
being; and they also repudiated sacrifices, which compelled them to
reject certain portions of the Old Testament (cf. Origen's statement
just below). They likewise refused recognition to the apostle Paul,
and ordained the observance of the Jewish law ; but they went be-
yond the Clementines in teaching the necessity of circumcision and
the repetition of baptism as a means to the forgiveness of sins. The
origin of the name Elkesaih:i9, also been disputed. Hippolytus says
it was the name of the man who was claimed to have received the
revelation, and Epiphanius calls Elkesai a false prophet; but some
critics have thought them mistaken, and have supposed that Elkesai
must have been the name of the book, or of the angel that gave the
revelation. It is more probable, however, as Salmon concludes, that
it was the name of a man whom the book represented as receiving the
revelation, but that the man was only an imaginary person, and not
the real founder of the school, as Epiphanius supposed, 'rhe book
cannot well be put back of the beginning of the third century, when
it first began to be heard of in the Catholic Church. It claimed to
have been for a century in secret circulation, but the claim is quite
unfounded. Eusebius speaks of the heresy as extinguished in the
very beginning, and it seems, in fact, to have played no prominent
part in history; and yet it apparently lingered on for a long time in
the East, for we hear of a sect in Arabia, as late as the tenth cen-
tury, who counted El-Chasaiach as their founder (.see Salmon's arti-
cle, p. 98). See the work of Uhlhorn already mentioned ; also
Ritschl's Entstehiing d. alt-Katholischen Kirche, p. 234 sq.
(Ritschl holds that the Clementines are older than the book of Elke-
sai), and Hilgenfeld's Not. Test, extra Can. rec. III. 153, where
the extant fragments of the book are collected. See also Salmon's
article in the Diet, of Christ. liiog. II. p. 95 sq.
2 On Origen's writinjjs on the Psalms, see chap. 24, note 3. This
fragment is the only portion of his homily on the eighty-second Psalm
extant.
•■* Alciabadcs, according to Hippolytus (see above, note i).
* The apostle Paul (see note i).
heart. They produce a certain book which they
say fell from heaven. They hold that whoever
hears and believes * this shall receive remission
of sins, another remission than that which Jesus
Christ has given."
Such is the account of these persons.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
The Persecution tender Decius, and the Suffer-
ings of Origen.
After a reign of seven years Philip was 1
succeeded by Decius.^ On account of his
hatred of Philip, he commenced a persecution
of the churches, in which Fabianus^ suffered
martyrdom at Rome, and Cornelius suc-
ceeded him in the episcopate.' In Pales- 2
tine, Alexander,* bishop of the church of
Jerusalem, was brought again on Christ's account
^ Origen does not mention the baptism of the Elkesites, which is
described at length by Hippolytus. It seems that both belief in the
teachings of the book and baptism were necessary. It may be that
in Origen's opinion the receiving of the book itself involved the
peculiar baptism which it taught, and that, therefore, he thought it
unnecessary to mention the latter.
1 Philip was defeated and slain near Verona, on June 17, 249, by
the Pannonian legions who had compelled Decius, the envoy sent
by Philip to quell a mutiny among them, to accept the title of
Augustus. Philip's death made Decius emperor; and he reigned
for a little over two years, when he perished in a campaign against
the Goths. The cause given by Eusebius for the terrible persecu-
tion of Decius is quite incorrect. The emperor, who before his ele-
vation was one of the most highly respected senators, seems to have
been a man of noble character and of high aims. He was a thorough-
going patriot and a staunch believer in the religion and laws of
Rome. He saw the terrible state of corruption and decay into which
the empire h.id fallen; and he made up his mind that it could be
arrested only by restoring the ancient Roman customs, and by
strengthening the ancient religion. He therefore revived the old
censorship, hoping that the moral and social habits of the people
might be improved under its influence; and he endeavored to exter-
minate the Christians, believing that thus the ancient purity of the
state religion might be restored. It was no low motive of personal
revenge or of caprice which prompted the persecution. We must
recognize the fact that Decius was one of the best and noblest of the
Roman emperors, and that he persecuted as a patriot and a believer
in the religion of his fathers. He was the first one that aimed at the
complete extermination of the Christians. He went systematically
to work to put the religion out of existence; and the persecution was
consequently both universal and of terrible severity, far more terri-
ble than any that had preceded it. The edicts published by Decius
early in the year 250 are no longer extant; but we can gather from
the notices, especially of Cyprian and Dionysius, that the effort was
first made to induce Christians throughout the empire to deny their
faith and return to the religion of the state, and only when large
numbers of them remained obstinate did the persecution itself begin.
2 On Fabianus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 29, note 4.
3 After the martyrdom of Fabianus the church of Rome was
without a bishop for about fourteen months. The bishopric of that
church was naturally under Decius a place of the greatest danger.
Cornelius became bishop in 251, probably in March, while Decius
was aw.ay from the city. After the emperor's death, which took
place in the following winter, Gallus renewed the persecution, and
Cornelius with a large part of the church fled to Civita Vccchia,
where he died in the summer of 253, according to Lipsius (the
Liberian catalogue says 252, which is the commonly accepted date,
but is clearly incorrect, as Lipsius has shown). I'oth versions of
the Chron. arc greatly confused at this point, and their statements
are very faulty (Jerome's version assiginng a reign of only fifteen
months to Decius and two years and four months to Gallus). Euse-
bius, in 13k. VII. chap. 2, says that Cornelius held office "about
three years," which is reason.ably accurate, for he was actually
bishop nearly two years and a half. It was during the episcopate
of Cornelius that the Novatian schism took place (see chap. 43).
Eight epistles from Cyprian to Cornelius are extant, and two from
Cornelius to Cyprian. In chap. 43 Eusebius makes extended quota-
tions from an epistle written by Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch,
and mentions still others which are not preserved. In chap. 46 he
refers to one against Novatian addressed to Dionysius of Alexandria,
which is likewise lost.
* On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap, 8, note 6,
VI. 40.]
THE DECIAN PERSECUTION.
281
before the governor's judgment seat in Csesarea,
and having aciiuiltcd himself nobly in a second
confession was cast into prison, crowned
3 with the hoary locks of venerable age. And
after his honorable and illustrious confession
at the tribunal of the governor, he fell asleep in
prison, and Mazabanes ^ became his suc-
4 cessor in the bishopric of Jerusalem. Baby-
las'* in Antioch, having like Alexander passed
away in prison after hie, confession, was succeeded
by Fabius ^ in the episcopate of that church.
5 But how many and how great things came
upon Origen in the persecution, and what
was their final result, — as the demon of evil
marshaled all his forces, and fought against the
man with his utmost craft and power, assaulting
him beyond all others against whom he con-
tended at that time, — and what and how many
things he endured for the word of Christ, bonds
and bodily tortures and torments under the iron
collar and in the dungeon ; and how for many
days with his feet stretched four spaces in the
stocks '^ he bore patiently the threats of fire and
whatever other things were inflicted by his
enemies ; and how his sufferings terminated, as
his judge strove eagerly with all his might not
to end his hfe ; and what words he left after
these things, full of comfort to those needing
aid, a great many of bis epistles show with truth
and accuracy.^
s The time of Mazabanes' accession is fixed approximately by
the fact that Alexander's death took place in the persecution of
Decius. His death is put by Eusebius (Bk. VII. chap. 14) in the
reign of Gallienus (260-268), and with this the notice in the Cliron.
agrees, which assigns it to the year 265. Since his successor, Hy-
menseus, was present at the council of Antioch, in which the case
of Paul of Samosata was considered (see below, Bk. VII. chaps.
29 and 30), it will not do to put Mazabanes' death later than 265.
'' On Babylas, see chap. 29, note 8.
' Eusebius gives the name of this bishop as Ba^io?, Jerome as
Fabianus, and Syncellus as •PAajSiai'd?. The time of his accession is
fixed by the death of Babylas in the persecution of Decius. He was
bishop of Antioch while Cornelius was bishop of Rome, as we
learn from the latter's epistle to him, quoted in chap. 43, below.
From an epistle written by Dionysius of Alexandria to Cornelius of
Rome (referred to in chap. 46), we learn that Fabius died while the
latter was still bishop, i.e. before the summer of 253 (see note 3,
above). The Chron. pasch. assigns three years to the episcopate
of Fabius; and though we cannot place much reliance upon the fig-
ure, yet it leads us to think that he must have been bishop for some
time, — at least more than a year, — and so we are inclined to put
his death as late as possible. The Chron. puts the accession of his
successor Demetrianus in the year 254, which is too late, at least
for the death of Fabius. We may conclude that the latter died prob-
ably in the year 253, or not long before. Harnack decides for the
time between the fall of 252 and the spring of 253. Fabius, as we
learn from the epistles addressed to him by Cornelius and Dionysius
(see chaps. 43 and 44), was inclined to indorse Novatian and the
rigoristic discipline favored by him. We know nothing more of the
life or character of Fabius.
8 ToOs TToSas UTTO TetTtrapa ToO KoAacrTrjpi'ou fOAou Traparrj^ets
5tacrTi)M-aTa. Otto, in his edition of Justin's Apology {Corp. Apol.
Christ. I. p. 204), says: ^vKov erat iriiiicus foramina habcns,
quibus pedes captivoruin inimitebantitr, jtt securins in carccre
servarentur aut tormcntis ve.xarentnr ("a fiiAof was a block,
with holes in which the feet of captives were put, in order that they
might be kept more securely in prison, or might be afflicted with
tortures"). The farther apart the feet were stretched, the greater
of course was the torture. Four spaces seems to have been the out-
side limit. Compare Bk. VIII. chap. 10, § 8.
" A tradition arose in later centuries that Origen died in the per-
secution of Decius (see Photius, Cod. 118); but this is certainly an
error, for Eusebius cannot have been mistaken when he cites Ori-
gen's own letters as describing his sufferings during the persecution.
The epistles referred to here are no longer extant. On Origen's
epistles in general, see chap. 36, note 7,
CHAPTER XL,
The Events wliich happened to Dionysius}
I SHALi.([uote from the epistle of Dionysius 1
to (lermanus-'an account of what befell the
former. Speaking of himself, he writes as follows :
1 Dionysius the Great (i^uscbius in the preface to Bk. VII.
calls him 6 /oLtyas 'AAtfai'Speuji' tTrnricoTros) was born toward the
close of the second century (he was an aged man, between 260 and
265, as we learn from Bk. Vll. clui]) 27), studied under Origen, and
succeeded Hcraclas as principal of the catechetical school in Alexan-
dria (see above, chap. 29) in the year 231 or 232 (see cha]). 3, note 2).
In the third year of Philip's reign (246-247) he succeeded Ileraclas
as bishop of Alexandria, according to cha]). 35, above. Whether he
continued to preside over the catechetical school after he became
hisho)) we do not know. Dittrich (p. 4 sq.) gives reasons for think-
ing that he did, which render it at least prob.able. He was still
living when the earlier synods, in which the case of Paul of Samosata
was considered, were held (i.e. between 260 and 264; see Bk. VII.
chap. 27, note 4), but he was dead before the last one met, i.e. before
265 A.D. (see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note i). Dionysius is one of the
most prominent, and at the .same time pleasing, figures of his age.
He seems to have been interested less in speculative than in practi-
cal questions, and yet he wrote an important work On Nature,
which shows that he possessed philosophical ability, and one of his
epistles contains a discussion of the authorship of the Apocalypse,
which is unsurpassed in the early centuries as an example of keen
.and yet judicious and well-balanced literary criticism (see Bk. VII.
chap. 25). His intellectual abilities must, therefore, not be under-
rated, but it is as a practical theologian that he is best known. He
took an active part in all the controversies of his time, in the Nova-
tian difficulty in which the re-admission of the lapsed was the burning
(|uestion; in the controversy as to the re -baptism of heretics; and in
the case of Paul of Samosata. In all he played a prominent part, and
in all he seems to have acted with great wisdom and moderation (see
chaps. 44 sq., Bk. VII. chaps. 5, 7 sq., chap. 27). He was taken
prisoner during the persecution of Decius, but made his escape (see
the present chapter). In the persecution of Valerian he was ban-
ished (see Bk. VII. chap. 11), but returned to Alexandria after the
accession of Gallienus (see Bk. VII. chap. 21). His conduct during
the persecutions exposed him to adverse criticism, and he defended
himself warmly against the accusations of a bishop Germanus,
in an epistle, portions of which are quoted in this chapter and in
Bk. VII. chap. 11. The writings of Dionysius were chiefly in the
form of epistles, written for some practical purpose. Of such epistles
he wrote a great many, and numerous fragments are extant, pre-
served chiefly by Eusebius. Being called forth by particular cir-
cumstances, they contain much information in regard to contempo-
rary events, and are thus an important historical source, as Eusebius
wisely perceived. Such epistles are quoted, or mentioned, in chaps.
41, 44, 45, and 46 of this book, and in Bk. VII. chaps, i, 2, 4, 5, 6,
7, 9, 10, II, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26. For particulars in regard to them,
see the notes on those chapters. In addition to his epistles a work.
On Promises, is referred to by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 28, and
in Bk. VII. chaps. 24 and 25, where extracts from it are quoted (see
Bk. VII. chap. 24, note i) ; also a commentary on the beginning of
Ecclesiastes in Bk. VII. chap. 26, and in the same chapter a work
in four books against Sabellius, addressed to Dionysius, bishop of
Rome, in which he defends himself against the charge of tritheism,
brought by some Sabellian adversaries. He was able to clear him-
self of all suspicion of heresy in the matter, though it is quite clear
that he had carried the subordinationism of Origen to a d.angerous
extreme. The attack upon him led him to be more careful in his
statements, some of which were such as in part to justify the suspi-
cions of his adversaries. Athanasius defended his orthodoxy in a
special work, De Sententiis Dionysii, and there can be no doubt
that Dionysius was honestly concerned to preserve the divinity of
the Son; but as in the case of Eusebius of Ca;sarea, and of all those
who were called upon to face Sabellianism, his tendency was to
lay an over-emphasis upon the subordination of the Son (see above,
p. II sq.). For further particulars in regard to this work, see the
chapter referred to, note 4. Upon Dionysius' views of the Trinity,
see Dittrich, p. gi sq. Besides the writings referred to, or quoted by
Eusebius, there should be mentioned an important canonical epistle
addressed to Basilides, in which the exact time of the expiration of
the lenten fast is the chief subject of discussion (still extant, and
printed by Pitra, Routh, and others, and translated in the Ante-
Niccne Fathers ; see Dittrich, p. 46 sq.). There are yet a few
other fragments of Dionysius' writings, extant in various MSS.,
which it Is not necessary to mention here. See Dittrich, p. 130.
The most complete collection of the extant fragments of his writings
is that of Migne, Patr. Gr. X. 1233 sq., to which must be added
Pitra's Spic. Solesm. I. 15 sq. English translation in the Ante-
Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 87-120. The most complete work upon
Dionysius is the monograph of Dittrich, Dionysius der Crosse,
Freiburg, i. Br. 1867.
2 This Germanus, as we learn from Bk. VII. chap. 11, was a
bishop of some see, unknown to us, who h.ad accused Dionysius
of cowardice in the face of persecution. In the present instance
Dionysius undertakes to refute his calumnies, by recounting accu-
282
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 40.
" I speak before God, and he knows that I do
not He. I did not flee on my own impulse
2 nor without divine direction. But even
before this, at the very hour when the
Decian persecution was commanded, Sabinus^
sent a frumentarius ■* to search for me, and I
remained at home four days awaiting his arrival.
But he went about examining all places, — roads,
rivers, and fields, — where he thought I might
be concealed or on the way. But he was smit-
ten with blindness, and did not find the house,^
for he did not suppose, that being pursued,
3 I would remain at home. And after the
fourth day God commanded me to depart,
and made a way for me in a wonderful manner ;
and I and my attendants^ and many of the
brethren went away together. And that this
occurred through the providence of God was
made manifest by what followed, in which
4 perhaps we were useful to some." Farther
on he relates in this manner what happened
to him after his flight :
" For about sunset, having been seized with
those that were with me, I was taken by the
soldiers to Taposiris,^ but in the providence of
God, Timothy® was not present and was not
rately his conduct during the persecutions. It must be remembered
that the letter is a defense against accusations actually made, or
we shall misunderstand it, and misinterpret Dionysius' motives in
dwelling at such length upon the details of his own sufferings. The
epistle, a part of which is quoted in this chapter, and a part in
Rk. Vll. chap. 11, was written, as we learn from the latter chapter,
§ i8, while the persecution of Valerian was still in progress, and
recounts his experiences during the persecutions of Decius and of
Valerian. The fragment quoted in the present chapter is devoted
to the persecution of Decius, the other fragment to the persecution
of Valerian. The letter is said to have been written np'o'; Tep/xai'di'.
This might be translated either to or attain si Ceriimnus. Analogy
would lead us to think the former translation correct, for all the
epistles mentioned are said to have been written Trpos one or another
person, and it is natural, of course, to expect the name of the person
addressed to be given. I have therefore translated the word thus,
as is done in all the versions. At the same time it must be noticed
that Germanus is spoken of in the epistle (especially in § 18 sq. of
the other chapter) not as if he were the person addressed, but as if
he were the person complained of to others; and, moreover, a letter
of defense .sent to him alone would probably have little effect, and
would fail to put an end to the calumnies which must have found
many ready ears. It seems, in fact, quite probable that the epistle
was rather a public than a private one, and that while it was nomi-
nally addressed to Germanus, it was yet intended for a larger pub-
lic, and was written with that public in view. This will explain the
peculiar manner in which Germanus is referred to. Certainly it is
hard to think he would have been thus mentioned in a personal
letter.
•• Sabinus, an otherwise unknown personage, seems to have been
prefect of Egypt at this time, as /Emilianus was during the persecu-
tion of Valerian, according to Bk. VII. chap. 11.
* One of the frinncntarii militcs, or military commissaries,
who were employed for various kinds of business, and under the
emperors especially as detectives or secret spies.
5 ix'i) tvpi.aKiav. It is not meant that the frumentarius could not
find the house, but that he did not think to go to the house at all,
through an error of judgment ("being smitten with blindness"))
supposing that Dionysius would certainly be elsewhere.
'' oi TraiSet. This is taken by many scholars to mean " children,"
and the conclusion is drawn by them that Dionysius was a married
man. Dittrich translates it " pupils," supposing that Dionysius was
still at the head of the catechetical school, and th.at some of his
scholars lived with him, as was quite common. Others translate
" servants," or " domestics." I have used the indefinite word " atten-
dants" simply, because the waiSt? may well have included children,
scholars, servants, and others who made up his family and consti-
tuted, any or all of them, his attendants. As shown in note 8, the
word at any rate cannot be confined in the present case to servants.
' Strabo (I'k. XVII. chap, i) mentions a small town called
Taposiris, situated in the neighborhood of Alexandria.
* We know nothing about this Timothy, except that Dionysius
addressed to him his work On Nature, as reported by Eusebius in
and
to
he
captured. But coming later, he found the house
deserted and guarded by soldiers, and our-
selves reduced to slavery." ^ After a little 5
he says :
" And what was the manner of his admirable
management ? for the truth shall be told. One
of the country people met Timothy fleeing
disturbed, and inquired the cause of his
haste. And he told him the truth. And
when the man heard it (he was on his way
to a marriage feast, for it was customary
spend the entire night in such gatherings),
entered and announced it to those at the table.
And they, as if on a preconcerted signal, arose
with one impulse, and rushed out quickly and
came and burst in upon us with a shout. Immedi-
ately the soldiers who were guarding us fled, and
they came to us lying as we were upon the
bare couches. But I, God knows, thought 7
at first that they were robbers who had
come for spoil and plunder. So I remained
upon the bed on which I was, clothed only in a
linen garment, and offered them the rest of my
clothing which was lying beside me. But they
directed me to rise and come away quickly.
Then I understood why they were come,
and I cried out, beseeching and entreating
them to depart and leave us alone. And I re-
quested them, if they desired to benefit me in
any way, to anticipate those who were carrying
me off, and cut off my head themselves. And
when I had cried out in this manner, as my com-
panions and partners in everything know, they
raised me by force. But I threw myself on my
back on the ground ; and they seized me by
the hands and feet and dragged me away.
And the witnesses of all the.se occurrences 9
followed : Gains, Faustus, Peter, and Paul.^°
But they who had seized me • carried me out of
the village hastily, and placing me on an ass
without a saddle, bore me away." "
Dionysius relates these things respecting him-
self.
8
VII. 26. He is there called Tifi.iu9eo5 6 Trats. Dionysius can hardly
have addressed a book to one of his servants, and hence we may
conclude that Timothy was either Dionysius' soit (as Wcstcott holds)
or scholar (as Dittrich hclieves). It is reasonable to think him one
of the TrniSes, with others of whom Dionysius was arrested, as
recorded just above. It is in that case of course necessary to give
the word as used there some other, or at least some broader sense
than " servants."
" Greek efr)i'6pan-o5io-/ifi'Oi;5, meaning literally " reduced to sla-
very." The context, however, does not seem to justify such a ren-
deruig, for the reference is apparently only to the fact that they were
captured. Their c.ii)ture, had they not been released, would have
resulted probably in death rather than in slavery.
'" These four men are known to us only as companions of Dio-
nysius during the persecution of Decius, as recorded here and in
IJk. VII. chap. II. From that chapter, § 23, we learn that Caius
and Peter were alone with Dionysius in a desert place in Libya,
after being carried away by the rescuing party mentioned here.
From § 3 of the same chapter we learn that Faustus was a deacon,
and that he was with Dionysius also during the persecution of V.a-
lerian, and from § 26 that he sufltred martyrdom at a great age in
the Diocletian persecution. Sec also Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 11.
'■ As we learn from Ilk. VII. chap. 11, § 23, this rescuing jKirty
carried Dionysius to a desert place in Libya, wlicre he was left with
only two companions until tlie persecution ceased.
VI. 41.]
MARTYRS IN ALEXANDRIA.
2S3
CHAPTER XLI.
The Martyrs in Alexandria.
1 Thf, same writer, in an epistle to Fabius/
bishop of Antioch, relates as follows the
sufferings of the martyrs in Alexandria under
Decius :
"The persecution among us did not begin
with the royal decree, but preceded it an entire
year." The prophet ami author of evils'' to this
city, whoever he was, previously moved and
aroused against us the masses of the heathen,
rekindling among them the superstition of
2 their country. And being thus excited by
him and finding full opj^jortunity for any
wickedness, they considered this the only pious
service of their demons, that they should slay
us.
1 I read iJ'afJtoi' with the majority of tlie MSS., and with Vale-
sius, Stroth, Burton, Closs, and Cruse, preferring to adopt the same
spelling here that is used in the other passages in which the .same
bishop is mentioned. A number of MS.S. read "tajStafoi', which is
supported by Rufinus, and adopted by Scluvegler, Laemmer, and
Heinichen. On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see chap. 39, note 7.
The time of his episcopate stated in that note fixes the date of this
epistle within narrow limits, viz. between 250 and the spring of
453. The whole tone of the letter and the discussion of the rcadmis-
sion of the lapsed would lead us to think that the epistle was written
after the close of the persecution, but in § 20, Dioscorus is said to
be still among them, waiting for " a longer and more severe con-
flict," which seems to imply that the persecution, if not raging at
the time, was at leas^t expected to break out again soon. This would
lead us to think of the closing months of Decius' reign, i.e. late in
the year 251, and this date finds confirmation in the consideration
that the epistle (as we learn from chap. 44) was written after the
breaking out of the Novatian .schism, and apparently after the elec-
tion of Novatian as opposition bishop, for Fabius can hardly have
sided with him against his bishop, so long as he was only a presby-
ter. Doubtless Novatian's official letter, announcing his election,
had influenced Fabius. But Novatian was elected bishop in 251,
probably in the summer or early fall; at least, some months after
Cornelius' accession, which took place in February, 25r. It seems,
from chap. 44, that Fabius was inclined to side with Novatian, and
to favor his rigoristic principles. This epistle was written (as we
learn from chap. 42, § 5) with the express purpose of leading him
to change his position and to adopt more lenient principles in his
treatment of the lapsed. It is with this end in view that Dionysius
details at such length in this chapter the sufferings of the martyrs.
He wishes to impress upon Fabius their piety and steadfastness, in
order to beget greater respect for their opinions. Having done
this, he states that they who best understood the temptations to
which the persecuted were exposed, had received the lapsed, when
repentant, into fellowship as before (see chap. 42, note 6). Diony-
sius' own position in the matter comes out very clearly in this
epistle. He was in full sympathy with the milder treatment of the
lapsed advocated in Rome and in Carthage by Cornelius and
Cyprian.
- The edict of Decius was published early in the year 250, and
therefore the persecution in Alexandria, according to Dionysius,
began in 249, while Philip was still emperor. Although the latter
showed the Christians favor, yet it is not at all surprising that this
local persecution should break out during his reign. The peace
which the Christians were enjoying naturally fostered the growth of
the Church, and the more patriotic and pious of the heathen citizens
of the empire must necessarily have felt great solicitude at its con-
stant increase, and the same spirit which led Decius to persecute
would lead many such persons to desire to persecute when the
opportunity offered itself; and the closing months of Philip's reign
were so troubled with rebellions and revolutions that he had little
time, and perhaps less inclination, to interfere in such a minor
matter as a local persecution of Christians. The common people
of Alexandria were of an excitable and riotous disposition, and it
was always easy there to stir up a tumult at short notice and upon
slight pretexts.
2 6 Ko-Kuiv rfi TToAet ravxTy \xavTLs Kai n-ot>)T>)?. The last word
is rendered " poet" by most translators, and the rendering is quite
possible; but it is difficult to understand why Dionysius should speak
of this person's being a poet, which could have no possible connec-
tion with the matter in hand. It seems better to take TroiTjTTJs in
its common sense of" maker," or " author," and to suppose Diony-
sius to be thinking of this man, not simply as the prophet of evils to
the city, but also as their author, in that he " moved and aroused
against us the masses of (he heathen."
" They seized first an old man named Met- 3
ras,'* and commanded him to utter impious
words. But as he would not obey, they beat him
with clubs, and tore his face and eyes with sharp
sticks, and dragged him out of the city and
stoned him. Then they carried to their 4
iilol teni[)le a faithful woman, named Quinta,
that they might force her to worship. And as
she turned away in detestation, they bound her
feet and dragged her through the entire city
over the stone-paved streets, and dashed her
against the millstones, and at the same time
scourged her ; then, taking her to the same
place, they stoned her to death. Then all 5
with one impulse rushed to the homes of
the pious, and they dragged forth whomsoever
any one knew as a neighbor, and despoiled and
plundered them. They took for themselves the
more valuable property ; but the poorer articles
and those made of wood they scattered about
and burned in the streets, so that the city
appeared as if taken by an enemy. But the 6
brethren withdrew and went away, and ' took
joyfully the spoiUng of their goods,' ^ like those
to whom Paul bore witness. I know of no one
unless possibly some one who fell into their
hands, who, up to this time, denied the
Lord. Then they seized also that most ad- 7
mirable virgin, Apollonia, an old woman,
and, smiting her on the jaws, broke out all her
teeth. And they made a fire outside the city
and threatened to burn her alive if she would
not join with them in their impious cries. And
she, supplicating a little, was released, when she
leaped eagerly into the fire and was con-
sumed. Then they seized Serapion in his 8
own house, and tortured him with harsh cru-
elties, and having broken all his limbs, they threw
him headlong from an upper story. And there
was no street, nor public road, nor lane open to
us, by night or day ; for always and everywhere,
all of them cried out that if any one would not re-
peat their impious words, he should immedi-
ately be dragged away and burned. And mat- 9
ters continued thus for a considerable time.
But a sedition and civil war came upon the
wretched people and turned their cruelty toward
us against one another.*' So we breathed for a
little while as they ceased from their rage against
us. But presently the change from that milder
reign was announced to us,^ and great fear
* Of the various martyrs and confessors mentioned in this chap-
ter, we know only what is told us by Dionysius in this epistle.
5 Heb. X. 34. Upon the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
see Bk. HI. chap. 3, note 17; and upon Eusebius' opinion in the
matter, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note i.
'^ We know that the closing months of Philip's reign were troubled
with seditions in various quarters; but Dionysius is our only author-
ity for this particular one, unless it be connected, as some think,
with the revolt which Zosimus describes as aroused in the Orient by
the bad government of Philip's brother, who was governor there, and
by excessive taxation (see Tillemont, Hisi. dcs Emp. III. p. 272).
' This refers to the death of Philip and the accession of Decius.
The hostile edicts of the latter seem not to have been published un-
284
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
tvi.41.
10 of what was threatened seized us. For the
decree arrived, almost Uke unto that most
terrible time foretold by our Lord, which if it
were possible would offend even the elect.^
11 All truly were affrighted. And many of
the more eminent in their fear came for-
ward immediately ; ^ others who were in the
pubUc service were drawn on by their official
duties j ^"^ others were urged on by their acquaint-
ances. "And as their names were called they
approached the impure and impious sacrifices.
Some of them were pale and trembled as if they
were not about to sacrifice, but to be themselves
sacrifices and offerings to the idols ; so that they
were jeered at by the multitude who stood
around, as it was plain to every one that they
were afraid either to die or to sacrifice.
12 But some advanced to the altars more
readily, declaring boldly that they had never
been Christians. Of these the prediction of our
Lord is most true that they shall ' hardly ' '^ be
saved. Of the rest some followed the one,
others the other of these classes, some fled
13 and some were seized. And ofthe latter some
continued faithful until bonds and imprison-
ment, and some who had even been imprisoned
for many days yet abjured the faith before
they were brought to trial. Others having for
a time endured great tortures finally re-
14 tracted. But the firm and blessed pillars
of the Lord being strengthened by him, and
having received vigor and might suitable and
appropriate to the strong faith which they pos-
sessed, became admirable witnesses of his
15 kingdom. The first of these was Julian, a
man who suffered so much with the gout that
he was unable to stand or walk. They brought
him forward with two others who carried him.
til some months after his accession, i.e. early in 250. But his hos-
tility to Christianity might have been known from the start, and it
mi^ht have been understood that he would persecute as soon as he
had attended to the other more important matters connected with
his accession.
' Matt. xxiv. 24. Eusebius reads a(cav5aAi'<rot ; Matthew, TrAa-
vaaSai or TrAai'^a'ai.
" i.e. to sacrifice.
10 oi 6t 5i)fi.o<7ieuoi'Tes vtto tuiv irpd^eiai' fiyovTo. Every officer of
the government under the imperial regimen was obliged to sacrifice
to the Gods upon taking office, and also to sacrifice at stated times
during his term of office, and upon special occasions, or in connection
with the performance of important official duties. He might thus be
called upon in his official capacity frequently to offer sacrifices, and
a failure to perform this part of his duties was looked upon as sacri-
lege and punished as a crime against the state. Christian officials,
therefore, were always in danger of suffering for their religion unless
they were allowed, as a special favor, to omit the sacrifices, as was
often the case under those emperors who were more favorably inclined
toward Christianity. A private citizen was never obliged to sacrifice
except in times of persecution, when he might be ordered to do so
as a test, liut an official could not carry out fully all the duties of
his position without s.acrificing. This is one reason why many of
the Christians avoided public office, and thus drew upon themselves
the accusation of a lack of patriotism (cf. Origen, Contra Cels.
VI. 5 sq., and Tertullian's A/>oL c. 42); and it is also one reason
why such Christians as happened to be in office were always the first
to suffer under a hostile emperor.
" Cf. Matt. xix. 23. This sentence shows that Dionysius did
not consider it impossible even for those to be saved who denied
Christ before enduring any suffering at all. He was clearly willing
to leave a possibility of salvation even to the worst oflTenders, and in
this agreed perfectly with Cornelius, Cyprian, and the body of the
Roman and Carthaginian churches.
One of these immediately denied. But the other,
whose name was Cronion, and whose surname was
Eunus, and the old man Julian himself, both of
them having confessed the Lord, were carried on
camels through the entire city, which, as you
know, is a very large one, and in this elevated
position were beaten and finally burned in a
fierce fire,'^ surrounded by all the populace.
But a soldier, named Besas, who stood by 16
them as they were led away rebuked those
who insulted them. And they cried out against
him, and this most manly warrior of God was
arraigned, and having done nobly in the
great contest for piety, was beheaded. A 17
certain other one, a Libyan by birth, but in
name and blessedness a true Macar,^^ was strongly
urged by the judge to recant ; but as he would
not yield he was burned alive. After them Epi-
machus and Alexander, having remained in bonds
for a long time, and endured countless agonies
from scrapers '* and scourges, were also con-
sumed in a fierce fire.^^ And with them 18
there were four women. Ammonarium, a
holy virgin, the judge tortured relentlessly and
excessively, because she declared from the first
that she would utter none of those things which
he commanded ; and having kept her promise
truly, she was dragged away. The others were
Mercuria, a very remarkable old woman, and
Dionysia, the mother of many children, who did
not love her ovm. children above the Lord.'*'
As the governor was ashamed of torturing thus
ineffectually, and being always defeated by
women, they were put to death by the sword,
without the trial of tortures. For the champion,
Ammonarium, endured these in behalf of all.
The Egyptians, Heron and Ater and Isi- 19
dorus, and with them Dioscorus,^'^ a boy
about fifteen years old, were delivered up. At
first the judge attempted to deceive the lad by
fair words, as if he could be brought over easily,
and then to force him by tortures, as one who
would readily yield. But Dioscorus was
neither persuaded nor constrained. As the 20
'- a<Tfii(TTia TTVpi.
'■i The Greek word iJidxap means " blessed."
1^ f uffTtjpas. " The instrument of torture here mentioned was
an iron scraper, calculated to wound and tear the flesh as it passed
over it " (Cruse).
1^ TTvpi aa■^€<^T(l>,
'" Rufinus adds at this point the words e( alia Ainiiionaria
("and another Ammonaria "). Valesius therefore conjectures that
the words koX ' Kixixovapiov trtpa must have stood in the original
text, and he is followed by Stroth and Heinichen. The MSS.,
however, are unanimous in their omission of the words, and the
second sentence below, which speaks of only a single Ammon.irium,
as if there were no other, certainly argues against their insertion.
It is possible that Rufinus, finding only three women mentioned
after Dionysius had referred to four, ventured to insert the " other
Ammonaria."
" It has been suggested (by 13irks in the Did. of Christ. Biof;.)
that this Dioscorus may be identical with the presbyter of the same
name mentioned in Bk. VII. chap, ii, § 24. But this is quite hn-
possible, for Dioscorus, as we learn from this passage, was but
fifteen years old at the time of the Decian persecution, and Diony-
sius is still speaking ofthe same persecution when he mentions the
presbyter Dioscorus in the chapter referred to (sec note 31 on that
chapter) .
VI. 42.]
OTHERS WHO SUFFERED UNDER DECIUS.
285
others remained firm, he scourged them cruelly
and then delivered them to the fire. l>ut
admirinir the manner in which Dicscorus had
distinguished himself publicly, and his wise
answers to his persuasions, he dismissed him,
saying that on account of his youth he would
give him time for repentance. And this most
godly Dioscorus is among us now, awaiting a
lonirer conflict and more severe contest.
21 But a certain Nemesion, who also was an
Egyptian, was accused as an associate of
robbers ; but when he had cleared himself be-
fore the centurion of this charge most foreign to
the truth, he was informed against as a Chris-
tian, and taken in bonds before the governor.
And the most unrighteous magistrate inflicted
on him tortures and scourgings double those
which he executed on the robbers, and then
burned him between the robbers, thus honoring
the blessed man by the likeness to Christ.
22 A band of soldiers, Ammon and Zeno and
Ptolemy and Ingenes, and with them an
old man, Theophilus, were standing close to-
gether before the tribunal. And as a certain
person who was being tried as a Christian,
seemed inclined to deny, they standing by
gnashed their teeth, and made signs with their
faces and stretched out their hands, and
23 gestured with their bodies. And when the
attention of all was turned to them, before
any one else could seize them, they rushed up
to the tribunal saying that they were Christians,
so that the governor and his council were
affrighted. And those who were on trial ap-
peared most courageous in prospect of their
sufferings, while their judges trembled. And
they went exultingly from the tribunal rejoicing
in their testimony ; '* God himself having caused
them to triumph gloriously."
CHAPTER XLIL
Others of whom Dionysius gives an Account.
1 " Many others, in cities and villages, were
torn asunder by the heathen, of whom I will
mention one as an illustration. Ischyrion^ was
employed as a steward by one of the rulers.
His employer commanded him to sacrifice, and
on his refusal insulted him, and as he remained
18 fiaprvpia. It is difficult to ascertain from Dionysius' language
whether these five soldiers suffered martyrdom or whether they
were released. The language admits either interpretation, and
some have supposed that the magistrate was so alarmed at what he
feared might be a general defection among the troops that he dis-
missed these men without punishing them. At the same time it
seems as if Dionysius would have stated this directly if it were a
fact. There is nothing in the narrative to imply that their fate was
different from that of the others ; and moreover, it hardly seems prob-
able that the defection of five soldiers should so terrify the judge as
to cause him to cease executing the imperial decree, and of course
if he did not execute it in the case of the soldiers, he could hardly do
it in the case of others.
1 Ischyrion is known to us only from this passage.
firm, abused him. And as he still held out he
seized a long staff and thrust it through his
bowels" and slew him.
" Why need I speak of the multitude that 2
wandered in the deserts and mountains,
and perished by hunger, and thirst, and cold,
and sickness, and robbers, and wild beasts?
Those of them who survived are witnesses
of their election and victory. But I will 3
relate one occurrence as an example.
Chaeremon,^ who was very old, was bishop of
the city called Nilus. He fled with his wife * to
the Arabian mountain ^ and did not return.
And though the brethren searched diligently
they could not find either them or their
bodies. And many who fled to the same 4
Arabian mountain were carried into slavery
by the barbarian Saracens. Some of them were
ransomed with difficulty and at a large price ;
others have not been to the present time. I
have related these things, my brother, not with-
out an object, but that you may understand how
many and great distresses came upon us. Those
indeed will understand them the best who have
had the largest experience of them."
A little further on he adds : " These 5
divine martyrs among us, who now are
seated with Christ, and are sharers in his king-
dom, partakers of his judgment and judges with
him, received some of the brethren who had
fallen away and become chargeable with the
guilt of sacrificing. When they perceived that
their conversion and repentance were suffi-
cient to be acceptable with him who by no
means desires the death of the sinner, but his
repentance, having proved them they received
them back and brought them together, and met
with them and had fellowship with them in
prayers and feasts." What counsel then, 6
- evTGpoiv Koi (xnKdyxi'Oji'.
' Of the bishop Chaeremon of Nilus we know only what is told
us here. The city Nilus or Nilopolis was situated on an island in
the Nile, in middle Egypt, some distance south of Memphis.
* Trj (rv/ii(3ici) eavroii. The word (tv/oi/3ios, which means a " com-
panion" or "partner," can signify nothing else than "wife" as
used here in the feminine.
^ TO 'Apd^iov opo?. The name Arabic jis 7H0ns, to 'Apdfiiov
oCpos, was given by Herodotus to the range of mountains which
separated that part of Arabia lying west of the Arabian Gidf from
the Nile valley (see Smith's Did. of Greek and Rom. Geography).
^ et(7"e5e'^aj'TO koli trvvqyayoi' Kai crvi'^o'T-qaav Kal 7Tpoa€v\un'
ai/Toi? Kal ecTTido'etot' €Koii'uJ>'7)<rai'. It will be observed that nothing
is said here about joining with these persons in celebrating the
eucharist, or about admitting them to that service, and hence Vale-
sius is quite right in distinguishing the kind of communion spoken of
here from official communion in the church, around the Lord's table.
Dionysius does not imply that these confessors had the power given
them to receive the lapsed back again into the Church, and to dispense
the eucharist to them. That was the prerogative of the bishop, and
evidentljr Dionysius has no thought of its being otherwise. The
communion of which he speaks was private fellowship merely, and
implied a recognition on the part of these confessors that the persons
in question had truly repented of their sin, and could be recom-
mended for readmission into the Church. As we see from chap. 44,
§ 2, the recommendation of these persons or of the people in general
was quite necessary, before the bishop would consent to absolve the
fallen person and receive him back again into the Church. And
Dionysius' words in this passage show tliat he felt that the judgment
of these confessors in regard to the fitness of the lapsed for read-
mission ought to be received with consideration, and have influence
upon the final decision. Dionysius thus shows great respect to the
286
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 42.
brethren, do you give us concerning such per-
sons ? What should we do ? Shall we have the
same judgment and rule as theirs, and observe
their decision and charity, and show mercy
to those whom they pitied ? Or, shall we declare
their decision unrighteous, and set ourselves as
judges of their opinion, and grieve mercy and
overturn order? "^ These words Dionysius very
properly added when making mention of those
who had been weak in the time of persecution.
CHAPTER XLIII.
Novates^ his Alanner of Life and his Heresy.
1 After this, Novatus, a presbyter of the
church at Rome, being Hfted up with arro-
confessors, but does not accord them the privileges which they
claimed in some places (as we learn from Tertullian's de Pudicitia,
22, and from a number of Cyprian's Epistles) of themselves ab-
solving the lapsed and readmitting them to church communion. In
this he showed again his agreement with Cyprian and with the prin-
ciples finally adopted in the Roman and Carthaginian churches (cf.
e.g. Cyprian's Epistles, q <s.i\.,al. 15; see also Dittrich, p. 51 sq.).
' The object of the letter is clearly revealed in these sentences
(see chap. 41, note i).
• Eusebius, and the Greeks in general, write the name Noouaro?
(though in Bk. VII. chap. 8, below, Dionysius writes Noouariai'o?).
Socrates has the form N'auaTo?, which appears also in some M.SS.
of Eusebius. Cyprian and the Latins write the name Novatianus.
Lardncr, in a note on chap. 47 of his Credibility, argues with great
force for the correctness of the name Novatus, while Heinichen and
others maintain that Novatianus is the right form. The name No-
7'ntiaiu\ NooiiaTtai'oi, which was given to his followers, is urged
with some reason by Lardner as an argument for the shorter form of
the name. But even if his opinion is correct, the name Novatian is
too long established to be displaced, and serves to distinguish him
from the Carthaginian presbyter Novatus. The schism of Novatian
was only one of the outcrops of the old strife between lax and strict
discipline in the Church, the strife which had shown itself in con-
nection with Montanism and also between Callistus and Hippolytus
(see above, chap. 21, note 3). But in the present ca.se the imme-
diate cause of the trouble was the treatment of the lapsed. The ter-
rible Decian persecution had naturally caused many to deny the
faith, but afterward, when the stress was past, they repented and
desired to be readmitted to the Church. The question became a
very serious one, and opinions were divided, some advocating their
acceptance after certain prescribed penances, others their continued
exclusion. The matter caused a great deal of discussion, especially
in Rome and Carthage. The trouble came to a head in Rome, when
Cornelius, who belonged to the lax party, was chosen bishop in the
year 251, after the see had been vacant for more than a year. The
stricter party at once aroused to action and chose Novatian, the
leader of the party, opposition bishop. He had been made a pres-
byter by the bishop Fabian, and occupied a vei-y prominent position
in the Roman Church. He seems originally to have held less rigid
notions in regard to the treatment of the lapsed, but before the end
of the persecution he became very decided in his opposition to their
absolution and restoration. His position, as well as his ability and
piety, made him the natural leader of the party and the rival candi-
date for the bishopric. He does not, however, seem to have desired
to accept con.secration as an oppositiim bishop, but his party insisted.
He immediately sent the usual letters' announcing the fact to the
bishops of the principal sees, to Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome.
Cyprian at once refused to recognize his appointment. Dionysius
wrote to him advising him to withdraw (see his epistle, quoted in
chap. 45). But Fabius of Antiocli was inclined to take his side (see
chap. 44, §1). Novatian was excommunicated by the council men-
tioned just below, and then founded an independent church, baptiz-
ing all who came over to his side. We know nothing of his subse-
quent career (according to the tr.adition of his followers, and also
Socrates, H. E. IV. 28, he suffered martyrdom under Valerian), l>nt
his sect spread throughout the East and West, and continued in
existence until the sixth century. Novatian was not at all heretical
in doctrine. His work upon tlie Trinity is both able and ortho<lox.
His character was austere and of unblemished purity (the account
given by Cornelius below is a gross misrepresentation, from the pen
of an enemy), .and his talents were of a high order. But the tendency
of the Church was toward a more merciful treatment of the lapsed
and of other sinners, and the stricter methods advocated by him fell
more and more into disfavor. Novatian was quite a prolific writer.
According to Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 10, he wrote de Fascha, de
Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de Sacerdote, de Oratione, de Cibis
gance against these persons, as if there was no
longer for them a hope of salvation, not even if
they- should do all things pertaining to a genu-
ine and pure conversion, became leader of the
heresy of those who, in the pride of their im-
agination, call themselves Cathari.- There- 2
upon a very large synod assembled at
Rome,^ of bishops in number sixty, and a great
many more presbyters and deacons ; while the
pastors of the remaining provinces deliberated
in their places privately concerning what ought
to be done. A decree was confirmed by all, that
Novatus and those who joined with him, and
those who adopted his brother-hating and in-
human opinion, should be considered by the
church as strangers ; but that they should heal
such of the brethren as had fallen into misfor-
tune,'* and should minister to them with the
medicines of repentance.
There have reached us epistles ' of Cor- 3
nelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabius, of the
church at Antioch, which show what was done
at the synod at Rome, and what seemed best to
all those in Italy and Africa and the regions
thereabout." Also other epistles, written in the
yicdaicis, de Instantia, de Attalo Multaque alia, et de Trinitate
graiide Vohimen. The de Cibis Jndaicis and the de Trinitate are
still extant. The best edition of his works is that of Jackson (Lon-
don, 172S). An English translation is given in the Aiitc-Nicetie
Fathers, V. 611-650. Novatian was the author also of one of the
epistles of the Roman clergy to Cyprian (^Ep. 30). Our contempo-
raneous sources for a knowledge of Novatian and his .schism are the
epistles of Cyprian (some ten of them), and the epistles of Dionysius
and Cornelius, quoted by Eusebius in this chapter and in chaps. 44
and 45.
- Kadapoi, " pure."
2 This council is undoubtedly identical with the one mentioned
in Cyprian's epistle to Antonianus {Ep. 51, § 6; ai. 55). It was
held, according to Cyprian, soon after the Carthaginian synod, in
which the treatment of the lapsi was first discussed, and accepted
the decisions of that council. The Carthaginian synod met in the
spring of 251 (see Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 112). The Roman
synod must, therefore, have been held before the end of the same
year; Hefele thinks about October {ibid. p. 114). Cornelius would
not, of course, have waited long before procuring the official con-
demnation of the opposition bishop. We know nothing more about
the constitution of the council than is told us here. It was, of course,
only a local synod. The pastors of the remaining provinces were
the other Italian bishops who could not be present at the council.
Cornelius solicits their opinion, in order that the decree passed by
the council may represent as large a number of bishops as possible.
■* Tou? 6e Tj) (TVfjifjiopa TrepiTreTrTOKOTa?. The Carthaginian synod
had decided that no offenses are beyond the regular power of the
Church to remit.
'' Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 66) gives the singular instead of the
plural (epistolam ad Fabiiim); so also Rufinus; but there is no
reascm for doubting the integrity of the Greek text of Eu.sebius, which
runs, i\K0ov 6' ovv et? rjfxa'; eTTtCToAal KopnjAt'ou. Valesius, al-
though translating epistolte Coriielii, yet follows Jerome and Rufi-
nus in believing that only one epistle is meant here. Neitlier Rufi-
nus nor, apparently, Jerome knew anything about the epistle, except
what they read in Eusebius, and therefore it is more probable that
Eusebius was correct in using the plural than that they were correct
in using the singular. It is easy to imderstand the change of Euse-
bius' indefinite plural into their definite singular. They were evi-
dently written in Greek; for in speaking of Cyprian's epistles inune-
diately afterward, Eusebius especially mentions the fact that they
were written in Latin. The epistle from which Eusebius quotes just
below was also written in Greek, for Eusebius would otherwise, as
is his custom, have mentioned the fact that he gives only a transla-
tion of it. Tliis has been pointed out by Valesius; but, as Routh
remarks, we can certainly go further, and say that the other epistle
mentioned by Eusebius must have been in (Jreek, too, since it was
written by the same Cornelius, and addres.sed to the same Fabius.
These epistles are no longer extant.
" Eusebius says, ra Trepl T^s 'Pui/ioitoi' avvohov Kal rii tu^nvm
TTiio-i Toit (cara rrji/ 'iTaAiai' k.t.A., which Jerome has transformed
or compressed into de Sy>iodo Roinaiia, Italiea, Afrieana, another
instance of the careless way in which his de vir. ill. was composed.
VI. 43-]
THE NOVATIAN SCHISM,
i^-]
Latin language, of Cyprian and tliose with him
in Africa,' which show that they agreed as to the
necessity of succoring tliose who had been
tempted, and of cutting off from the Catholic
Church the leader of the heresy and all
4 that joined with him. Another epistle of
Cornelius, concerning the resolutions of the
s>mod, is attached to these ; and yet others,"^ on
the conduct of Novatus, from which it is proper
for us to make selections, that any one who
5 sees this work may know about him. Cor-
nelius informs Fabius what sort of a man
Novatus was, in the following words :
" But that you may know that a long time
ago this remarkable man desired the episcopate,
but kept this ambitious desire to himself and
concealed it, — using as a cloak for his rebel-
lion those confessors who had adhered to him
from the beginning, — I desire to speak.
6 IMaximus,'' one of our presbyters, and Ur-
banus,^" who twice gained the highest honor
^ These epistles from Cyprian and the African bishops Jerome
transforms into a single epistle from Cornelius to Fabius, dc Nova-
iiano, et dc his qui la/>si sunt. At least, it seems impossible to ex-
plain this epistle mentioned by Jerome m any other way. Knowing
the slovenly way in which he put his work together, it is not sur-
prising that he should attribute these epistles to the same person who
wrote the ones mentioned just before and after. Since the first epis-
tles mentioned are said to have been addressed to Fabius and also
the last one, from which Eusebius quotes, it is reasonable to conclude
that all mentioned in this connection were addressed to him; and it
would of course be quite natural for Cyprian, too, to write to Fabius
(who was known to be inclined to favor Novatian), in order to con-
firm the accoimt of Cornelius, and to announce that he agreed with
the latter in regard to the treatment of the lapsed. No epistle, how-
ever, of Cyprian or of other African bishops to Fabius are extant,
though the same subject is discussed in many epistles of Cyprian
addressed to the people.
* Rufinus mentions only two epistles of Cornelius in this connec-
tion, apparently confounding this one on the deeds of the Novatians
with the one mentioned just before on the Decrees of the Council.
Jerome, on the other hand, making Cornelius, as already mentioned,
the author of the epistles of Cyprian and the African bishops, assigns
four epistles to Cornelius. None of the epistles mentioned in this
section are extant, except the long fragment of the last one quoted
ju-it below. As mentioned in the next chapter, Fabius inclined to
take the side of Novatian over against the laxer party ; and it was
on this account that Cornelius wrote him so many epistles (compare
also the epistle of Dionysius of .Alexandria, quoted in chaps. 41 and
42, and see note i on the former chapter), and endeavored to blacken
the character of Novatian as he does in the passages quoted.
" This Maximus was a presbyter, and one of a party of Roman
confessors who played a prominent part in the controversy about
the lapsed. He and his companions were imprisoned at the very
beginning of the Decian persecution (Cyprian, E/>. 24; nl. 28), i.e.
early in the year 250, and while in prison they adopted rigoristic
views and wrote to some Carthaginian confessors, urging strict
methods in dealing with the lapsed (see Cyprian,^/. 22; al. 27).
Early in the year 251, after eleven months in prison, the presbyter
Moses, the leading spirit of the party, died, and Maximus became
the chief one among them. Moses before his death, in spite of his
rigoristic principles, refused to commune with Novatian and his five
presbyters (as we learn from § 20 of this chapter), apparently be-
cause he saw that his insistence upon strict discipline was tending
toward schism, and that such discipline could not be maintained
without sacrificing the Church. But Maximus and those mentioned
with him here, together with some others (see Cyprian, E/-. 45;
al. 49), became even stricter than at first, and finally went over to
the party of Novatian (which took its rise after the election of Cor-
nelius in 251), but were at length reconciled to Cornelius and the
rest of the Church, and received back with rejoicing (see Cyprian,
-£>• 43. 45. 46, 49. 50; "I- 46. 49. 5.^. 53. 54)- The notices of
iSIaximus and Urbanus in Cyprian's epistles, which with the epistle
of Cornelius constitute our only source for a knowledge of their
lives, do not mention a second confession m.ade by these two men,
so that we cannot tell when it took place, but it must of course have
been during the persecution of Decius.
1" Urbanus was a confessor only, not a presbyter or deacon, as
we learn from the notices of him in Cyprian's epistles, in connec-
tion with the party referred to in the previous note.
by confession, with Sidonius," and Celerinus,'-
a man who by tlie grace of God most heroically
endured all kinds of torture, and by the strength
of his faith overcame the weakness of the flesh,
and mightily conquered the adversary, — these
men found him out and detected his craft and
duplicity, his perjuries and falsehoods, his un-
sociability and cruel friendship. And they re-
turned to the holy church and proclaimed in the
presence of many, both bishops and presbyters
and a large number of the laity, all his craft and
wickedness, which for a long time he had con-
cealed. And this they did with lamentations
and repentance, because through the persuasions
of the crafty and malicious beast they had left
the church for the time." A little farther on he
says :
" How remarkable, beloved brother, the 7
change and transformation which we have
seen take place in him in a short time. For this
most illustrious man, who bound himself with terri-
ble oaths in nowise to seek the bishopric,^^sudden-
" Sidonius likewise was a confessor simply, and is mentioned
with the others in the epistles of Cornelius and Cyprian.
'- Celerinus was also one of this party of Roman confessors (as
we learn from Cyprian, Ep. 15, al. 87), who, upon his release from
prison, went to Carthage, and was there ordained a reader by
Cyprian {E/>. 33, al. 39). His release from prison and departure
for Carthage took place before the release of the others and before
the death of Moses (as we learn from F./>. 15), that is, before the
end of the year 250. He was still in Rome, however, at Easter of
that year, as we learn from his epistle to Lucian, mentioned below.
He came of a family of martyrs {EJ>. 33), and was himself one of
the most celebrated confessors of his time. There is extant an epis-
tle written by him to Lucian, the Carthaginian confessor (Cyprian,
E/>. 21), in which he begs absolution for his sisters, who had denied
the faith. The epistle (as we learn from its own statements) was
written at Easter time and in the year 250, for there was no bishop
of Rome at the time of its composition. As we learn from this pas-
sage, Celerinus went over with these other Roman confessors to the
party of Novatian, and returned with them to the Church. He is, how-
ever, mentioned neither by Cyprian nor by Cornelius (in his epistle
to Cyprian) in connection with the schism of these confessors. This
is very remarkable, especially since Celerinus was quite a prominent
char.acter. It is possible that he was in Carthage the greater part
of the time, and did not return to Rome until shortly before the
confessors returned to the Church. He might then have thrown in
his lot with them, and have returned with them to the orthodox
church; and yet, not having been mentioned by Cornelius' earlier
epistle to Cyprian, announcing the schismatic position of the con-
fessors, he was omitted also in the later letters announcing their
return (which in fact only mentions the three leaders), and in
Cyprian's reply, which of course would only mention those of whom
he had been told in Cornelius' first epistle. Of the subsequent
career of Celerinus and of these other confessors we know nothing.
1^ There is no reason to doubt, as Cornelius does, Novatian's
sincerity in declaring that he did not seek the office of bishop. Both
Cornelius and Cyprian make his ambition and his jealousy of Cor-
nelius, the successful candidate, the cause of his schism. But such
an accusation was made against every schismatic, even when there
was not a shadow of support for it, and there is no reason to sup-
pose it nearer the truth in this than in other cases. In fact, his own
protestation, as recorded here by Cornelius, and as testified to by
I )ionysius in chap. 45, as well as the character of the man as revealed
in his life previous to his episcopal ordination (as certified to even
by his enemies), and in his writings, .are entirely opposed to the
supposition that he sought the episcopal office and that his schism
was a result of his defeat. We shall do much better to reject en-
tirely this exceedingly hostile and slanderous account of his enemy
Cornelius, and to accept his own account of the matter as reported
by Dionysius in chap. 25. He was the natural head of the rigor-
istic party, made such by his commanding ability, his deep piety,
and his ascetic principles of living; and when Cornelius, the head
of the lax party, was made bishop (in March, 251), the strict party
revolted, and it could not be otherwise than that Novatian should be
elected bishop, and that even if reluctant he should feel compelled to
accept the office in order to assert the principles which he believed
vital, and to prevent the complete ruin of the Church. Cornelius
gives a sad story of his ordination to the episcopate. But one thing
is certain, he had with him for some time a large portion of the best
people in the Roman church, among them Maximus and others of
the most influential confessors, who seem at length to have returned
288
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VT. 43.
ly appears a bishop as if thrown among us
8 by some machine." For this dogmatist, this
defender of the doctrine of the Church/^
attempting to grasp and seize the episcopate,
which had not been given him from above,
chose two of his companions who had given up
their own salvation. And he sent them to a
small and insignificant corner of Italy, that there
by some counterfeit argument he might deceive
three bishops, who were rustic and very simple
men. And they asserted positively and strongly
that it was necessary that they should come
quickly to Rome, in order that all the dissen-
sion which had arisen there might be appeased
through their mediation, jointly with other
9 bishops. When they had come, being, as
we have stated, very simple in the craft and
artifice of the wicked, they were shut up with
certain selected men like himself. And by the
tenth hour, when they had become drunk and
sick, he compelled them by force to confer
on him the episcopate through a counterfeit and
vain imposition of hands. Because it had not
come to him, he avenged himself by craft
10 and treachery. One of these bishops shortly
after came back to the church, lamenting
and confessing his transgression. And we com-
muned with him as with a layman, all the people
present interceding for him. And we ordained
successors of the other bishops, and sent
11 them to the places where they were. This
avenger of the Gospel ^'^ then did not know
that there should be one bishop in a catholic
church ; '' yet he was not ignorant (for how
to the Church only because they saw that the schism was injuring it.
Certainly if Novatian had been a self-seeker, as Cornelius describes
him, and if his ordination had been of such a nature as Cornelius
reports, he could never have had the support of so many earnest
and prominent men. It is doubtless true, as Cornelius states, that
Novatian was ordained by three Italian bishops, very likely bishops
of rural an<l comparatively insignificant sees, and it is quite possible
that one of them, as he also records, afterwards repented of his act
as schismatic, and returned to the Church and received absolution.
But all this does not imply that these three bishops were deceived
by false pretenses on the part of Novatian, or that they were intoxi-
cated when they performed the service. This, in fact, may be looked
upon as baseless calumny. Novatus, the Carthaginian agitator who
had caused Cyprian so much trouble, took a prominent part in the
Novatian schism, though to make him the author of it, as Cyprian
does, is undoubtedly incorrect (see Lardner, U-^orks, III. p. 94 sq. ;
London ed. 1829). It was perhaps he (as reported by Eulogius,
according to Pholius, Cud. 182, and by Theodoret, Ha-r. Fab. III. 5)
that found these three bishops to ordain Novatian. It is not at all
improbable, when so many prominent men in the Roman church
favored the stricter principles and supported Novatian, that bishops
could be found in Italy who held the same principles and would be
glad to ordain Novatian as bishop of Rome.
** tJ.ayyai'OV.
"" As Closs remarks, these words are evidently an allusion to
Novatian's work, tie Trinitate.
1" eVii/crjTr;? ToD euayytAiou. Possibly another sarcastic refer-
ence to Novatian's work in defense of the doctrine of the Church;
possibly only an allusion to the fact that he prided himself on his
orthodoxy.
" The principle, that there should be only one bishop in a city,
was not clearly enunciated and forcibly emphasized until the third
century. Cyprian's writings are full of it (cf. his treatise On the
Unity 0/ the Church), and in connection with this Novatian schism,
wliicli showed so plainly the disintegrating effects of a division of
the church under two bishops, the principle was established so
firmly as never again to be (|uestioncd. I do not mean to assert
here that the principle so clearly and conclusively established at this
time was a new principle. We find it enunciated even by Ignatius
It the beginning of the second century, and it was the common
could he be ?) that in it there were forty-six
presbyters, seven '^ deacons, seven sub-deacons,*^
forty-two acolyths,^ fifty-two exorcists,-* readers,"
and janitors,^ and over fifteen hundred widows
and persons in distress, all of whom the grace
and kindness of the Master nourish. But 12
not even this great multitude, so necessary
in the church, nor those who, through God's
providence, were rich and full, together with the
very many, even innumerable people, could turn
him from such desperation and presump-
tion and recall him to the Church." Again, 13
farther on, he adds these words :
" Permit us to say further : On account of
what works or conduct had he the assurance to
contend for the episcopate ? Was it that he had
been brought up in the Church from the begin-
ning, and had endured many conflicts in her be-
half, and had passed through many and great
dangers for religion ? Truly this is not the
fact. But Satan, who entered and dwelt in 14
him for a long time, became the occasion of
his believing. Being delivered by the exorcists,
he fell into a severe sickness ; and as he seemed
about to die, he received baptism by affusion,
opinion of Christendom, or otherwise Cyprian could not have ap-
pealed to universal custom as he does in discussing the matter.
1 mean simply that the principle had never before been brought to
such a test as to require its formal enunciation and public recog-
nition by the clergy and the Church at large. The emergency which
now arose compelled such formal statement of it; and the Council of
Nica;a made it canon law (cf. liingham's Antiquities, I. p. i6osq.).
1' The limitation of the deacons to seven in number was due to
the fact that the appointment of the Seven by the apostles (Acts vi.)
was commonly looked upon as the institution of the office of the
diaconate. But upon this matter, see above, Bk II. chap, i, note
2 a. The practice of limiting the number of the deacons to seven
was quite a common one, and was enacted as a law in the fifteenth
canon of the Council of Neo-Ca;sarea (held early in the third cen-
tury). The practice, however, was by no means universal, as we
are informed by Sozomen (//. E. VII. 19). Indeed, at least in
Alexandria and in Constantinople, their number was much greater
(see Bingham's Ant. I. p. 286).
1" The sub-deacons (the highest of the inferior orders of the
clergy) are first mentioned in this epistle of Cornelius and in various
epistles of Cyprian. At what time they arose we cannot tell, but
they seem to have appeared in the East later than in the West, at
least the first references we have to them in the Orient are in the
fourth century, e.g. in the Apost. Const. VIII. 21. They acted as
deacons' assistants, preparing the sacred vessels for use at the altar,
attended the doors during communion ser\'ice, and were often em-
ployed by the bishops for the conveyance of letters or messages to
distant churches. .See Bingham's Atit. Bk. III. chap. 2.
-" The Acolyths (aKoAovSoi), another of the inferior orders of the
clergy, are likewise first mentioned here and in Cyprian's epistles.
They seem to have been of much later institution in the Kast, for
we first hear of them there in the time of Justinian (Justin. NoTet.
59). Their duties seem to have been to attend to the lights of the
church and to procure the wine for communion service. See Bing-
ham, i/'iii. chap. 3.
-1 The Kxorcists likewise constituted one of the inferior orders
of the clergy; but although we find exorcism very frequently re-
ferred to by the Fathers of the second century, there seems to have
been no such office until the third century, the present being the
earliest distinct reference to it. In the fourth century we find the
office in all parts of the Church Kast and West. Their duty was to
take charge of those supposed to be possessed of an evil spirit; to
pray with them, care for them, and exorcise the demon when possi-
ble. See Bingham, i/'id. chap. 4.
-- The Readers, or Lectors (Greek, ai'ayi'uJ<rTai; Latin, /.^c-
tores), constituted still another of the inferior orders, and were
already a distinct office in the time of TertuUian (cf. de I'riescrip.
chap. 41). From the third century on the order seems to have been
universal. 'Ilieir duty was to rea<l the Scriptures in the public ser-
vices of the sanctuary. See Bingham, iHd. chap. 5.
-' The Janitors, or Doorkeepers (Greek, TrvKuipoi or fivpiupoi;
\.Mn, ps/iarii or j'anitares), are first mentioned in this passage.
In the fourth century, however, we find them frequently referred to.
Tlieir office seems to have been about the same as that of the mod-
ern janitor or sexton. See Bingham, Hid. chap. 6.
VI. 43-]
THE NOVATIAN SCHISM.
289
on the bed where he lay ; "* if indeed we
15 can say that such a one did receive it. And
when he was healed of his sickness he did
not receive the other things which it is necessary
to have according to the canon of the Church,
even the being sealed by the bishop."^ And as
he did not receive this,-" how could he re-
16 ceive the Holy Spirit?" Shortly after he
says again :
" In the time of persecution, through coward-
ice and love of life, he denied that he was a
presbyter. For when he was requested and en-
treated by the deacons to come out of the
chamber in vv^hich he had imprisoned himself,
and give aid to the brethren as tar as was lawful
and possible for a presbyter to assist those of
the brethren who were in danger and needed
help, he paid so little respect to the entreaties of
the deacons that he Avent away and departed in
anger. For he said that he no longer desired
to be a presbyter, as he was an admirer
17 of another philosophy."-''' Passing bv a few
things, he adds the following :
-* There is no reason to doubt that Novatian received clinical
baptism, as here stated by Cornelius. This does not imply, as is
commonly supposed, that he was of heathen parentage, for many
Christians postponed baptism as long as possible, in order not to
sacrifice baptismal grace by sins committed after baptism. W'e do
not know whether his parents were heathen or Christians. Upon
the objection to Novatian's ordination, based upon his irregular
baptism, see below, § 17.
-^ Tou T€ a(jifiayLi70T}i'ai vno rov enKTKoirov, (T(l>payi(T6i}i'at here
means confirmation or consignation (as it was commonly called
among the Latins) ; that is, the imposition of the hands of the
bishop which regularly followed baptism, immediately if the bishop
were on the ground, in other cases at as early a date as possible.
The imposition of hands was for the purpose of conveying the Holy
Spirit, who should supply the newly baptized Christian with the
necessary grace to fit him for the Christian life. Confirmation was
thus looked upon as completing the baptism and as a necessary pre-
condition of receiving the eucharist. At the same time, if a person
died after baptism, before it was possible to receive imposition of
hands, the baptism was not regarded as rendered invalid by the omis-
sion, for in the baptism itself the full remission of sins was supposed
to be granted. The confirmation was not necessary for such remis-
sion, but was necessary for the bestowal of the requisite sustaining
grace for the Christian life. Cornelius in the present paragraph does
not intend to imply that regenerating grace was not given in Nova-
tian's baptism. He means simply that the Holy Spirit was not given
in that full measure in which it was given by the laying on of hands,
and which was necessary for growth in grace and Christian living.
The baptism was looked on in ordinary cases as in a sense negative,
— effecting the washing away of sin, the laying on of hands as posi-
tive, confirming the gift of the Spirit. The former, therefore, was
sufficient to save the man who died immediately thereafter; the
latter was necessary to sustain the man who still remained in the
world. Compare with these words of Cornelius Tertullian's de
Baptism, chap. 6. The earliest extant canon on this subject is the
thirty-eighth of the synod of Elvira (306 a.d.), which decrees that
a sick person may in case of necessity be baptized by a layman, but
that he is afterward, if he recovers, to be taken to the bishop thai
the baptism may be perfected by the laying on of hands. The
seventy-seventh canon decrees the same thing for those baptized by
deacons, but expressly declares that if the baptized person die before
the imposition of hands, he is to be regarded as saved in virtue of the
faith which he confessed in his baptism. It is not necessary to give
other references in connection with this matter. For further par-
ticulars, see Bingham, ibid. Bk. XH.
On the signification of the verb (Tij>payi^u>, see Suicer's T/iesau-
riis. We can hardly believe that Novatian failed to receive imposi-
tion of hands from the bishop, for it is inconceivable that the latter
would have omitted what was regarded as such an important pre-
requisite to church communion in the case of one whom he ordained
to the presbyterate. Novatian may not have received confirmation
immediately after his recovery, but he must have received it before
his ordination. As seen in § 17, it is not the omission of confirma-
tion that causes the objections on the part of the clergy, but the
clinical baptism.
-'' The majority of the MSB., followed by Schwegler, Laemmer,
and Heinichen, read rovriuv. But some of the best MSS., followed
by all the other editors, read Toiirou.
" For this illustrious man forsook the Church
of God, in which, when he believed, he was
judged worthy of the })resbyterate through the
favor of the bishop who ordained him to the
presbyterial office. This had been resisted by
all the clergy and many of the laity ; because it
was unlawful that one who had been affused on
his bed on account of sickness as he had been
should enter into any clerical office ; ^ but the
bishop requested that he might be permitted
to ordain this one only." He adds to these 18
yet another, the worst of all the man's of-
fenses, as follows :
" For when he has made the offerings, and
distributed a part to each man, as he gives it he
compels the wretched man to swear in place of
the blessing. Holding his hands in both of his
own, he will not release him until he has sworn
in this manner (for I will give his own words) :
' Swear to me by the body and blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ that you will never for-
sake me and turn to Cornelius.' And the 19
unhappy man does not taste until he has
called down imprecations on himself; and in-
stead of saying Amen, as he takes the bread,
he says, I will never return to Cornelius."
Farther on he says again : 20
" But know that he has now been made
bare and desolate ; as the brethren leave him
every day and return to the church. Moses ^
" This is certainly a calumny. It is possible, as Neander sug-
gests, that Novatian, although a presbyter, withdrew somewhat
from active duty and lived the life of an ascetic, and that it is this
to which Cornelius refers in speaking of his admiration for " another
philosophy." But however that may be, Cornelius' interpretation
of his conduct as cowardly or unworthy is quite false. See above,
note I.
-* Clinic baptism (so-called from (cAiVrj, " a bed") was ordinarily
looked upon in the early Church, in which immersion was the com-
mon mode of baptism, as permanently debarring a person from the
presbyterate, and by many persons it was denied that such baptism
was baptism at all. The latter opinion, however, the Church re-
fused to sustain (cf. Cyprian, .£■/. 75; a/. 19). The twelfth canon
of the Council of Neo-Csesarea (held early in the fourth century')
says, " If any man is baptized only in time of sickness, he shall not
be ordained a presbyter; because his faith was not voluntary, but
as it were of constraint; except his subsequent faith and diligence
recommend him, or else the scarcity of men make it necessary to
ordain him." It is clear that this canon meant to apply only to
persons whose baptism was delayed by their own fault. It was
common for catechumens to postpone the rite as long as possible in
order not to forfeit baptismal grace by their post-baptismal sins,
and it was to discourage this practice that such canons as this of
Neo-Caesarea were passed. Even this canon, however, provided
for exceptional cases, and the fact that Novatian was ordained in
spite of his irregular baptism is a proof that he must have been an
exception.ally pious and zealous man.
2'-i On Moses (or Moyses, as he is called by Cyprian), see note 9,
above.
Lipsius {,Chro>t. tier ront. Bischofe, p. 202, note) maintains
that Cornelius is referring, at this point, not to Novatian, but to
Novatus, the Carthaginian presbyter, and that Eusebius has con-
foimded the two men. He bases this opinion upon the mention of
the five presbyters, whom he identifies with those who, with Nova-
tus, separated from the Carthaginian church in connection with the
schism of Felicissimus (see Cyprian, Ep. 39; al. 43), and also upon
the fact that Moses died before the election of Novatian as opposi-
tion bishop. In regard to the first point, it must be noticed that, in
an epistle to Cyprian upon the schism of Novatian (Cyprian, JF/. 47;
al. 50), Cornelius mentions five presbyters (including Novatus) as
connected with Novatian in his schism. Certainly it is most natural
to refer Cornelius' words in this paragraph to the same five men.
Indeed, to speak of Novatus and the five presbyters with him would
be very peculiar, for Novatus himself was one of the five, and there-
fore there were but four with him. As to the second point, it may
simply be said that Moses might well have refused to commune with
Novatian, before the election of the latter, seeing that his position
VOL. L
U
290
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
CVI. 43.
also, the blessed martyr, who lately suffered
among us a glorious and admirable martyrdom,
while he was yet alive, beholding his boldness
and folly, refused to commune with him and
with the five presbyters who with him had sep-
arated themselves from the church."
21 At the close of his letter he gives a list
of the bishops who had come to Rome and
condemned the silliness of Novatus, with their
names and the parish over which each of
22 them presided. He mentions also those
who did not come to Rome, but who ex-
pressed by letters their agreement with the vote
of these bishops, giving their names and the
cities from which they severally sent them.""
Cornelius wrote these things to Fabius, bishop of
Antioch.
CHAPTER XLIV.
Dionysius^ Account of Se7-apion.
1 To this same Fabius, who seemed to lean
somewhat toward this schism,* Dionysius of
Alexandria also wrote an epistle.- He writes in
this many other things concerning repentance,
and relates the conflicts of those who had lately
suffered martyrdom at Alexandria. After the
other account he mentions a certain wonderful
fact, which deserves a place in this work. It is
as follows :
2 "I will give thee this one example which
occurred among us. There was with us a
certain Serapion,^ an aged believer who had
lived for a long time blamelessly, but had fallen
in the trial. He besought often, but no one
gave heed to him, because he had sacrificed.
But he became sick, and for three successive
days continued speechless and senseless.
3 Having recovered somewhat on the fourth
day he sent for his daughter's son, and
said, 'How long do you detain me, my child?
I beseech you, make haste, and absolve me
speedily. Call one of the presbyters to me.'
And when he had said this, he became again
speechless. And the boy ran to the presbyter.
But it was night and he was sick, and there-
4 fore unable to come. But as I had com-
manded that persons at the point of death,
if they requested it, and especially if they had
asked for it previously, should receive remission,
would inevitably lead to schism. There remains, therefore, no rea-
son for supposiiit; Eusebius mistaken, and for referring these words
to Novatus of Carthage, instead of Novatian of Rome.
^ These lists of the bishops present at the council, and of those
who expressed their agreement with the decision of the synod, are
no longer extant.
1 See above, chap. 39, note 7.
' This epistle, as we may gather from the description of its con-
tents in the next sentence, is without doubt the same from which
Eusebius has quoted at such length in chaps. 41 and 42. Upon the
date and purpose of il, see chap. 41, note i. We possess only the
fragments quoted by Eusebius in these three chapters.
^ Of this Serapton we know only what is told us vx this chapter.
that they might depart with a good hope, he
gave the boy a small portion of the eucharist,
telling him to soak ■* it and let the drops fall
into the old man's mouth.^ The boy re- 5
turned with it, and as he drew near, before
he entered, Serapion again arousing, said, ' Thou
art come, my child, and the presbyter could not
come ; but do quickly what he directed, and
let me depart.' Then the boy soaked it and
dropped it into his mouth. And when he had
swallowed a little, immediately he gave up
the ghost. Is it not evident that he was 6
preserved and his life continued till he was
absolved, and, his sin having been blotted out,
he could be acknowledged " for the many good
deeds which he had done?"
Dionysius relates these things.
CHAPTER XLV.
An Epistle of Dionysius to Novatus.
But let us see how the same man addressed
Novatus* when he was disturbing the Roman
brotherhood. As he pretended that some of
the brethren were the occasion of his apostasy
and schism, as if he had been forced by them to
proceed as he had,- observe the manner in which
he writes to him :
" Dionysius to his brother Novatus, greeting.
If, as thou sayest, thou hast been led on unwil-
lingly, thou wilt prove this if thou retirest wil-
lingly. For it were better to suffer everything,
rather than divide the Church of God. Even
martyrdom for the sake of preventing division
would not be less glorious than for refusing to
worship idols. Nay, to me it seems greater.
For in the one case a man suffers martyrdom
^ dn-o/SpeJai. This is translated by Crusfe and by Salmond (in
the A)iii--Niccjie Fathers, VI. p. loi) " soak (or steep) in water";
but the liquid is not specified in tlie text, and it has conseiiuenlly
been thought by others that the bread was dipped in the wine,
as was commonly done in the celebration of the eucharist in the
Eastern Church (see I'ingham's Ant. Bk. XV.). Ihit it must be
noticed that the bread was soaked not by the presbyter but by the
boy, and that too after his return home, where there can have been
no consecrated wine for eucharistic use, and there is no hint that
wine was given him for the purpose by the presbyter. It tlii-refore
seems probable that the bread was soaked simply in water, and that
the soaking was only in order that the old man, in his enfeebled
state, might be able to receive the element in a liquid instead of in a
solid form.
^ Kara tov o'To/xaro? e7rto"Ta^ai.
'^ 6fioAoyr)fl>)i'ai. The meaning is apparently " acknowledged or
confessed by Christ," and Valesius is doubtless correct in remarking
that Dionysius was alluding to the words of Matt. x. 32.
1 This e|)istle to Novatian was doubtless wrillen in reply to a
letter from him announcing his election to tlie episcopate of Rome,
for we know that Novatian sent such letters, as was customary, to
all the prominent bishops of the Church. Dionysius' epistle, there-
fore, must have been written soon after the election of Novatian,
which took place in the year 251. We have only the fragment
c|uoted in this chapier.
"^ Novatian may well have been urged against his will to permit
himself to be made opposition bishop; but of course, once having
taken the step, so long as he believed ni the justice of the cause for
which he was contending, he could not turn back, but must main-
lain his position with vigor and firmness. This, of course, vvould
lead his enemies to believe that he had lumself sought the position,
as Dionysius evidently believed that he had.
VI. 46.]
VARIOUS EPISTLES OF DIONYSIUS.
291
for the sake of his own soul ; in the other case
in behalf of the entire Church. And now if
thou canst persuade or induce the brethren to
come to unanimity, thy righteousness will be
greater than thine error, and this will not be
counted, but tliat will be praised. lUit if thou
canst not prevail with the disobedient, at least
save thine own soul. I ])ray that thou mayst fare
well, maintaining peace in the Lord."
This he wrote to Novatus.
CHAPTER XLVI.
Other Epistles of Dionysius.
1 He wrote also an epistle to the brethren
in Egypt on Repentance.^ In this he sets
forth what seemed proper to him in regard to
those who had fallen, and he describes the
2 classes of transgressions. There is extant
also a private letter on Repentance, which he
wrote to Conon," bishop of the parish of Her-
mopolis, and another of an admonitory'^ charac-
ter, to his flock at Alexandria. Among them
also is the one written to Origen on Martyrdom ^
and to the brethren at Laodicea,^ of whom The-
lymidres was bishop. He likewise sent one on
Repentance to the brethren in Armenia,'' of
3 whom Merozanes was bishop. Besides all
these, he wrote to Cornelius of Rome, when
had received from him an epistle
he
agamst
1 This episHe on the subject of repentance or penance, which
was the burning one just at this time in connection with the lapsed,
was doubtless written at about the same time with those to Fabius
and Novatian, already referred to. No fragments of it have been
preserved.
^ This work {Trpoi; Kovoji'a IBia tis Trept /lieTavoia^-ypail)))), which
was probably written at about this same time, is mentioned also by
Jerome {de vir. ill. 69). Eusebius preserves no extract from it,
but extended fragments have been preserved In various MSS., and
have been published by Pitra {Spic. Solcstn. I. p. 15 sq.), though
it is questionable whether all that he gives are genuine. The trans-
lation of Dionysius' works in the Ante-Niccne Fathers omits all of
these fragments, though they are interesting and valuable. For
further particulars, see Dittrich, p. 62. The general character of the
letter must have been the same as that of the preceding.
3 t'TTia-TpeTTTiKT); literally, " calculated to turn." Musculus and
Christophorsonus translate hortatoria ; Valesius, objurgatoria ;
Stroth and Closs, "Ermahnungsschrift"; Cruse, "epistle of reproof."
The word does not necessarily carry the idea of reproof with it, but
it is natural to suppose in the present case that it was written while
Dionysius was absent from Alexandria, during the persecution of
Decius, and if so, may well have contained an admonition to stead-
fastness, and at the same time, possibly, an argument against rigor-
istic measures which some of the people may have been advocating
in reference to the lapsed. At least, the connection in which Euse-
bius mentions it might lead us to think that it had something to do
with that question, though, as the epistle is no longer extant, we can
reach no certainty in the matter.
* This epistle was doubtless written while Origen was suffering
imprisonment in the persecution of Decius (see above, chap. 39, and
below, p. 394), and was for the purpose of comforting and encour-
aging him (cf. Origen's own work on martyrdom, referred to in
chap. 28, above). The epistle is no longer extant. Numerous frag-
ments are given by Gallandi, Migne, and others, which they assign
to this work; but Dittrich has shown (p. 35 sq.) that they are to be
ascribed to some one else, perhaps to another Dionysius who lived
much later than the great bishop.
^ This epistle to the Laodiceans, which is no longer extant, very
likely dealt, like so many of the others, with the question of disci-
pline. Of Thelymidres, bishop of Laodicea, we know nothing.
•* We know no more about this epistle to the Armenians than is
told us here. The character of the letter must have been similar to
the two upon the same subject mentioned above. Of the bishop
Merozanes nothing is known.
Novatus.^ He states in this that he had been
invited by Helenus,** bishop of Tarsus, in Cili-
cia, and the others who were with him, Firmili-
anus,'-' bishop in Cappadocia, and 'I'heoctistus," of
Palestine, to meet them at the synod in Antioch,
where some persons were endeavoring to es-
tablish the schism of Novatus. Pesides this 4
he writes that he had been informed that Fa-
bius" had fallen asleep, and that Demetrianus'^
had been appointed his successor in the episco-
pate of Antioch. He writes also in these words
concerning the bishop of Jerusalem : " For the
blessed Alexander ^^ having been confined
in prison, passed away happily." In addi- 5
tion to this there is extant also a certain
other diaconal epistle of Dionysius, sent to those
in Rome through Hippolytus." And he wrote
' On Cornelius, see above, chap. 33, note 3. His epistle to Di-
onysius is no longer extant. Dionysius' epistle to him is likewise
lost, and is known to us only from what Eusebius tells us here. It
was written after the death of Fabius of Antioch (see below, § 4),
and therefore probably in 253 (see above, chap. 39, note 7). It has
been questioned whether this synod of Antioch to which, accord-
ing to Eusebius, Dionysius referred, was really held, or only
projected. The Libellus Syiwdicits records it as an actual synoti,
but its authority is of no weight. On the other hand, Eusebius'
words seem plainly to indicate that he believed that the council was
really held, for he speaks of it as "the synod at Antioch "; had he
thought of it only as projected, he could hardly have referred to it
in such definite terms. In spite, therefore, of the doubts of Dittrich,
Hefele, and others, I am inclined to believe that Eusebius supposed
that the synod had actually been held in Antioch. Whether the
epistle of Dionysius warranted him in drawing that conclusion is
another question, which cannot be decided. I look upon it, how-
ever, as probable that, had the synod been simply projected and
failed to convene, some indication of that fact would have been given
by Dionysius, and would have caused a modification of Eusebius'
statement.
8 Helenus, bishop of Tarsus, played a prominent part in the con-
troversy concerning the re-baptism of heretics, maintaining, like
most of the Oriental bishops, the necessity of re-baptizing them (see
below, Bk. VII. chap. 5), and also in the controversy which arose
about Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chaps. 28 and 30). From the
latter chapter we should gather that he presided at the final council
in Antioch, which passed condemnation upon Paul, Firmilian, who
seems to have presided at the previous councils, having died on his
way to the last one. Of Helenus' dates we know only what we can
gather from the facts here stated. He must have been bishop as
early as 252; and he cannot have died until after 265 (on the date of
the Antiochian synod at which Paul was condemned, see Bk. VII.
chap. 29, note i).
'• On Firmilian, see above, chap. 26, note 3.
'" On Theoctistus, see above, chap. 19, note 27.
't On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 39, note 7.
1- Demetrianus, the successor of Fabius, and predecessor of Paul
in the bishopric of Antioch, is mentioned also in Bk. VII. chaps. 5,
14, 27, and 30. The date of his accession is uncertain; but as
Fabius died probably in 253 (possibly in 252), we can fix approxi-
mately the beginning of his episcopate. In Bk. VII. chaps. 5 and 14,
he is said to have survived Gallienus' edict of toleration (260 a.d.) ;
but as Harnack has shown (Zeit dfs /giiati'iis, p. 51), this notice is
quite unreliable, as are also the notices in the Chronicle. We can
only say that his successor, Paul, became bishop between the years
257 and 260.
^3 On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see above, chap. 8, note 6.
1* The interpretation of this sentence is very difficult. The Greek
runs ef^s ravTj] Koi erepa tis eTrierToAr) toIs ev 'Pio^jj toC Aiovvaiov
ifteperaL SiaKoi'iKY) Sia. 'IttttoXvtov. The <j>epeTai, according to the
usage of Eusebius, must mean " is extant," and some participle (e.g.
" written" or " sent") must then be supplied before &ia 'IttttoXvtov,
Whether Eusebius means that the letter was written by Hippolytus
or was carried by him to Rome cannot be determined. The latter is
more probable, and is the commonly accepted interpretation. That
Eusebius should name a messenger in this particular case and in no
other seems peculiar, unless it be supposed that Hippolytus was so
prominent a character as to merit especial mention. Who he was
we do not know, for chronology will not permit us (as was formerly
done by some scholars) to identify him with the great writer of the
Roman church (see above, chaps. 20 and 22), and no other Hippoly-
tus of prominence is known to us. In view of Eusebius' mention of
the name at this point, I am inclined, however, to think that he,
knowing so little about the Roman Hippolytus, fancied that this was
the same man. If he did, he had good reason to mention him. The
word " diaconal " {SiaKofiKt}) in this sentence has caused much
U 2
292
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 46.
another to them on Peace, and likewise on Re-
pentance ; ^^ and yet another to the confessors
dispute. Rufinus translates epistola de tninistertis ; Valesius,
epistola de officio diaconi, that is, " concerning the office (or duties)
of the diaconate," and it seems out of the question to understand
the word in any other way. Why Dionysius should address an epistle
on this subject to the Roman church it is impossible to say. Magis-
tris supposed that it was called " diaconal " because it was to be
read in church by a deacon, and concluded that it was an exhorta-
tion to peace, since it was customary for the deacons to offer the
€tp)]i'iKa, or prayers for peace. The supposition is attractive, for it
is natural to think that this epistle, like the others, discussed the
Novatian schism and contained an exhortation to peace. But we
cannot without further evidence adopt Magistris' explanation, nor
indeed can we assume that a diaconal epistle as such (whether the
word is a technical one or not, and though it might seem such we
have no other trace of such a use of it) had to do with the unity
or peace of the Church. We must, in fact, leave the matter quite
undetermined. Compare Dittrich, ibid. p. 55.
"* Of these two epistles to the Romans we know only the titles,
as given here by Eusebius.
there who still held to the opinion of Novatus.^^
He sent two more to the same persons after
they had returned to the Church. And he com-
municated with many others by letters, which
he has left behind him as a benefit in various
ways to those who now diligently study his
writings."
'•^ On these confessors, and their return to the Church, see above,
chap. 43, note 9. Dionysius' epistles to them are known to us only
from Eusebius' reference to them in this passage.
1' Besides the epistles mentioned by Eusebius in this and the
previous chapter we know at least the titles of a number of others.
In Bk. VII. many are referred to, and extracts from some are quoted
by Eusebius. See especially Bk. VII. chap. 26, where another par-
tial list of them is given. Eusebius does not pretend to mention all
of Dionysius' epistles; indeed, he states that he wrote many besides
those mentioned. For further particulars in regard to all the epistles
I known to us, see Dittrich's monograph.
BOOK VII.
INTRODUCTION.
In this seventh book of the Church History,
the great bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius,^ shall
again assist us by his own words ; relating the
several affairs of his time in the epistles which
he has left. I will begin with them.
CHAPTER I.
The Wickedness of Decius and Gallus.
When Decius had reigned not quite two
years,^ he was slain with his children, and Gallus
succeeded him. At this time Origen died, be-
ing sixty-nine years of age.^ Dionysius, writing
to Hermammon," speaks as follows of Gallus : *
" Gallus neither recognized the wickedness of
Decius, nor considered what had destroyed him ;
but stumbled on the same stone, though it lay
before his eyes. For when his reign was pros-
perous and affairs were proceeding according to
his mind, he attacked the holy men who were
interceding with God for his peace and welfare.
Therefore with them he persecuted also their
prayers in his behalf." So much concerning
him.
* On Dionysius, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40, note i.
1 Decius reigned about thirty months, from the summer of 249
until almost the close of the year 251 (see Tillemont, Hist, dcs
Einp. III. p. 285). His son Herennius Etruscus was slain with his
father in a battle fought against the Goths in Thrace; another son,
Hostilianus, was associated in the purple with Decius' successor,
Gallus, but died soon afterwards, probably by the plague, which was
at that time raging: possibly, as was suspected, by the treachery of
Gallus. There has been some controversy as to whether Hostilianus
was a son, or only a nephew, or a son-in-law of Decius. Eusebius
in speaking of more than one son becomes an independent witness
to the former alternative, and there is really little reason to doubt it,
for Zosimus' statements are explicit (see Zosimus, I. 25, and cf.
Tillemont, ibid. p. 506). Two other sons are mentioned in one in-
scription, but its genuineness is doubtful. Eusebius, however, may be
urged as a witness that he had more than two (cf. Tillemont, ibid.).
' kvo<i hiovTO. T^s ^u)^S e/36ojiijitoi'Ta dTroTrA^cra? errj TeAeuTci.
Upon the date of Origen's birth and upon his life in general, see
above, Bk. VI. chap. 2, note i, and below, p. 391 sq.
3 Of this Hermammon we know nothing. The words of Euse-
bius at the close of chap. 22, below, lead us to think that he was
probably a bishop of some church in Egypt. Fragments of the
epistle addressed to him are preserved in this chapter and in chapters
ID and 23, below. It is possible that Dionysius wrote more than one
epistle to Hermammon and that the fragments which we have are
from different letters. This, however, is not probable, for Eusebius
gives no hint that he is quoting from more than one epistle, and,
moreover, the three extracts which we have correspond excellently
with one another, seeming to be drawn from a single epistle which
contained a description of the conduct of successive emperors toward
the Christians. The date of the epistle is given at the close of
chap. 23; namely, the ninth year of the Emperor Gallienus (i.e.
August, 261-August, 262), reckoning from the time of his associa-
tion with his father Valerian in the purple.
* Gallus succeeded Decius toward the close of the year 251
and reigned until the summer of ^53 (some with less ground say
CHAPTER II.
The Bishops of Rome in those Times.
Cornelius,' having held the episcopate in the
city of Rome about three years, was succeeded
by Lucius.^ He died in less than eight months,
and transmitted his office to Stephen.^ Diony-
254)1 when he was slain, with his son, by his own soldiers. His
persecution of the Christians (under him, for instance, Cornelius,
bishop of Rome, was banished, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3),
seems to have been less the result of a deeply rooted religious con-
viction and a fixed political principle (such as Decius possessed)
than of the terrible plague which had begun during the reign of
Decius and was ravaging the empire during the early part of Gallus"
reign (see Tillemont's Hist, dcs Emp. III. p. 288). He persecuted,
therefore, not so much as a matter of principle as because he desired
either to appease the populace or to propitiate the Gods, whom
he superstitiously believed, as the people did, to be the authors of
the terrible scourge.
' On Cornelius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3.
2 Eusebius makes Cornelius' episcopate a year too long (see
Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3), and hence puts the accession of Julius too
late. Jerome puts him in the second year of Gallus (see the same
note) and gives the duration of his episcopate as eight months, agree-
ing with Eusebius in the present passage. The Armenian Chron.
puts Lucius in the seventh year of Philip, and assigns only two
months to his episcopate. But it is far out of the way, as also in
regard to Cornelius. The Liberian catalogue assigns three years
and eight months to Liiciu.s' episcopate, putting his death in 255;
but Lipsius has shown conclusively that this must be incorrect, and
concludes that he held office eight months, from June, 253, to March,
254. He was banished while bishop of Rome, but returned very
soon, and died in a short time, probably a natural death. The strife
in regard to the lapsed, begun while Cornelius was bishop, continued
under him, and he followed the liberal policy of his predecessor.
One letter of Cyprian addressed to him is extent (£/. 57; al. 61).
■5 Lipsius puts the accession of Stephen on the twelfth of May,
254, and his death on the second of August, 257, assigning him an
episcopate of three years, two months and twenty-ore days. The
dates given by the chief authorities vary greatly. The Liberian
catalogue gives four years, two months and twenty-one days, which
Lipsius corrects simply by reading three instead of four years, for
the latter figure is impossible (see chap. 5, note 5). Eusebius, in
chap. 5, tells us that Stephen held office two yi ars. Jerome's ver-
sion of the Chrcit. says three years, but inits his accession in the
second year of Gallus, which is inconsistent with his own statement
that Cornelius became bishop in the first year of G.tIIus. The Arme.
nian Chron. agrees with Eusebius' statement in chap. 5, below, in
assigning two years to the episcopate of Stephen, hut puts his acces-
sion in the seventh year of Philip, which, like his notices of Cornelius
and Lucius is far out of the way.
The discussion in regard to the lapsed still continued under
Stephen. But the chief controversy of the time was in regard to
the re-baptism of heretics, which caused a severe rupture between the
churches of Rome and Carthage. Stephen held, in accordance with
ancient usage and the uniform custom of the Koman church (though
under Callistus heretics were re-baptized according to Hippolytus,
Phil. IX. 7), that baptism, even by heretics and schismatics, is
valid; and that one so baptized is not to be re-baptized upon entering
the orthodox church, but is to be received by the imposition of
hands. Cyprian, on the other hand, supported by the whole of the
Asiatic and African church, maintained the inv.didity of such baptism
and the necessity of re-baptism. The controversy became very
sharp, and seems to have resulted in Steplicn's hurling an excom-
munication against the Asiatic and African churches. Compare the
epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian (A/- 75), and tliat of Dionysius,
quoted by Eusebius in chap. 5, below. .Stephen appears to have
been a man of very dictatorial and overbearing temper, if our
authorities are to be relied upon, and seems to have made over-
weening claims in regard to Rome's prerogatives; to have been the
first in fact to assume that the bishop of Rome had the right of
exercising control over the whole Church (see especially the epistle
of Firmilian to Cyprian; Cyprian's Epistles, No. 74, al. 75). It
must be rememberedi however, that we know Stephen only through
294
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. 2.
sius wrote to him the first of his letters on bap-
tism,* as no small controversy had arisen as to
whether those who had turned from any heresy
should be purified by baptism. For the ancient
custom prevailed in regard to such, that they
should receive only the laying on of hands with
prayers;
\
CHAPTER III.
Cyprian, and the Bishops with hi /n, first taught
that it was necessary to purify by Baptism
those converted from Heresy.
First of all, Cyprian, pastor of the parish of
Carthage,^ maintained that they should not be
received except they had been purified from
their error by baptism. But Stephen consider-
ing it unnecessary to add any innovation contrary
to the tradition which had been held from the
beginning, was very indignant at this.^
CHAPTER IV.
The Epistles which Dionysius wrote on this
Subject.
Dionysius, therefore, having communicated
with him extensively on this question by letter/
finally showed him that since the persecution
the accounts of his opponents. It had been the practice in the
churches of Asia for a long time before Cyprian to re-baptize heretics
and schismatics (cf. the epistle of F'irmilian to Cyprian, and the
epistle of Dionysius, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 5, below), and the
custom prevailed also in Africa, though it seems to have been a
newer thing there. Cyprian, in his epistle to Jubaianus {EJ>. 72,
al. 73), does not trace it back beyond Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage,
under whom the practice was sanctioned by a council (186-187 or
215-217 A.D.)- Under Cyprian himself the practice was confirmed
by a council at Carthage, in 255 a.d. The more liberal view of the
Roman church, however, in time prevailed and was confirmed with
some limitations by the Council of Aries, in 314. Stephen figures
in tradition as a martyr, but there is no reason to think that he was
one, for the Church was enjoying comparative peace at the time of
his death. Two epistles are extant, addressed to him by Cyprian
(Nos. 66 and 71, al. 68 and 72). A number of Cyprian's epistles
refer to Stephen.
* Six epistles by Dionysius on the subject of baptism are men-
tioned by Eusebius (see below, chap. 5, note 6). It is clear that
Dionysius, so far as Eusebius knew, wrote but one to Stephen
on this subject, for he calls the one which he wrote to Xystus the
second (in chap. 5). Dionysius' own opinion on the subject of
re-baptism is plain enough from Eusebius' words in this chapter,
and also from Dionysius' own words in chap. 5, below. He sided
with the entire Eastern and African church in refusing to admit the
validity of heretical baptism, and in requiring a convert from the
heretics to be " washed and cleansed from the filth of the old and
impure leaven " (see chap. 5, § 5). '' See note 3.
1 From 247 or 248 to 258, when he suffered martyrdom.
^ See the previous chapter, note 3.
' 5id ypaiJLixa.Tiuv, which might mean " letters," but in the pres-
ent case must refer apparently to a single letter (the plural, ypafx-
fiara, like the Latin liiierae, was very commonly used to denote a
single epistle), for in chap. 2 Eusebuis says that Dionysius' first
epistle on baptism w.as .addressed to Stephen, and in chap. 5 informs
us that his second was addressed to Xystus. The epistle mentioned
here must be the one referred to in chap. 2 and must have been
devoted chiefly to the question of the re -baptism of heretics or
schismatics (rrepi roxnov referring evidently to the subject spoken of
in the previous chapter). I'ut Eusebius quiie irrelevantly i|uotes
from the epistle a passage not upon the subject in hand, but upon an
entirely different one, viz. upon the peace which had been estab-
lished in the Eastern churches, after the disturbances caused by the
schism of Novatian (see Kk. VI. chap. 43 sq.). That the peace
spoken of in this epistle cannot mean, as I'aronius held, that the
Eastern churches had come over to Stephen's opinion in regard to
the subject of baptism is clear enough from the fact that Ditmysius
wrote another epistle to Stephen's successor (see the next chapter)
had abated,^ the churches everywhere had re-
jected the novelty of Novatus, and were at
peace among themselves. He writes as follows :
CHAPTER V.
The Peace following the Persecution.
" But know now, my brethren, that all 1
the churches throughout the East and be-
yond, which formerly were divided, have become
united. And all the bishops everywhere are of
one mind, and rejoice greatly in the peace which
has come beyond expectation. Thus Demetri-
anus in Antioch,^ Theoctistus in Csesarea, Maza-
banes in ^lia, Marinus in Tyre (Alexander
having fallen asleep),' Heliodorus in Laodicea
(Thelymidres being dead), Helenus in Tarsus,
and all the churches of Cilicia, Firmilianus, and
all Cappadocia. I have named only the more
illustrious bishops, that I may not make my
epistle too long and my words too burden-
some. And all Syria, and Arabia to which 2
you send help when needed,'^ and whither
you have just written,* Mesopotamia, Pontus,
Bithynia, and in short all everywhere are re-
joicing and glorifying God for the unanimity
and brotherly love." Thus far Dionysius.
But Stephen, having filled his office two 3
years, was succeeded by Xystus.'^ Diony-
in which he still defended the practice of re-baptism. In fact, the
passage quoted by Eusebius from Dionysius' epistle to Stephen has
no reference to the subject of baptism.
2 The persecution referred to is that of Decius.
1 On Demetrianus, Thelymidres, and Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap.
46. On Theoctistus, see ihid. chap. 19, note 27 ; on Firmilian, ibid.
chap. 26, note 3; on Mazabanes, ihid. chap. 39, note 5.
- This clause (xoi/utijOti'Tos ' KKt^a.vhpov) is placed by Rufinus,
followed by Stroth, Zimmermann, Valesius (in his notes), Closs,
and Cruse, immediately after the words " Mazabanes in jElia."
Rut all the MSS. followed by all the other editors give the clause in
the position which it occupies above in my translation. It is natu-
ral, of course, to think of the famous Alexander of Jerusalem as re-
ferred to here (Bk. VI. chap. 8, note 6), but it is difficult to see how,
if he were referred to, the words could stand in the position which
they occupy in the text. It is not impossible, however, to assume
simple carelessness on Dionysius' part to explain the peculiar order,
and thus hold that Alexander of Jerusalem is here referred to. Nor
is it, on the other hand, impossible (though certainly difficult) to
suppose that Dionysius is referring to a bishop of Tyre named Alex-
ander, whom we hear of from no other source.
3 The church of Rome had been from an early date very liberal
in assisting the needy in every quarter. See the epistle of Diony-
sius of Corinth to Soter, bishop of Rome, quoted above in Bk. IV.
chap. 23.
■* Dionysius speaks just below (§ 6) of epistles or an epistle of
Stephen upon the subject of baptism, in which he had announced
that he would no longer commune with the Oriental bishops, who
held to the custom of baptizing heretics. ,\nd it is this epistle which
must have stirred up the rage of Firmilian, which shows itself in his
epistle to Cyjirian, already mentioned. The epistle of Stephen re-
ferred to here, however, cannot be identical with that one, or Dio-
nysius would not speak of it in such a pleasant tone. It very likely
had something to do with the heresy of Novatian, of which Diony-
sius is writing. It is no longer extant, and we know only what
Dionysius tells us about it in this passage.
'• Known as .Sixtus II. in the list of Roman bishops. On .Six-
tus I. see above, Bk. IV. chap. 4, note 3. That Xystus (or Sixtus)
was martyred under Valerian we are told not only by the I,i-
berian catalogue, but also by Cyprian, in an epistle written shortly
before his own death, in 258 (No. 81, al. 80), in which he gives
a detailed account of it. There is no reason to doubt the date
given by the Liberian catalogue (.'\ug. 6, 258) ; for the epistle of
Cyprian shows that it must have taken place just about that time.
Valerian having sent a very severe rescript to the Senate in the simi-
mer of 258. This fixed point for the martyrdom of Xystus enables
VII. 7-]
SABELLIANISM.
295
sius wrote him a second epistle on baptism,'' in
which lie shows him at the same time the opin-
ion and judgment of Stephen and the other
bishops, and speaks in this manner of
4 Stephen : " He therefore had written pre-
viously concerning Helenus and Firmilia-
nus, and all those in Cilicia and Cappadocia
and Galatia and the neighboring nations, saying
that he would not commune with them for this
same cause ; namely, that they re-baptized here-
tics. But consider the importance of the
5 matter. For truly in the largest synods of
the bishops, as I learn, decrees have been
passed on this subject, that those coming over
from heresies should be instructed, and then
should be washed'' and cleansed from the filth
of the old and impure leaven. And I wrote
entreating him concerning all these things."
Further on he says :
6 "I wrote also, at first in few words, re-
cently in many, to our beloved fellow-pres-
byters, Dionysius ^ and Philemon,^ who formerly
had held the same opinion as Stephen, and had
written to me on the same matters." So much
in regard to the above-mentioned controversy.
CHAPTER VI.
T/ie Heresy of Sabellius.
He refers also in the same letter to the heret-
ical teachings of Sabellius,^ which were in his
time becoming prominent, and says :
us to rectify all the dates of the bishops of this period (cf, Ltpsius,
I.e.). As to the duration of his episcopate, the ancient authorities
differ greatly. The Liberian catalogue assigns to it two years
eleven months and six days, but this is impossible, as can be gath-
ered from Cyprian's epistle. Lipsius retains the months and days
(twelve or six days), rejecting the two years as an interpolation, and
thus putting his accession on Aug. 24 (or 31), 257. According to
Eusebiiis, chap. 27, and the Armenian Chron., he held office eleven
years, which is quite impossible, and which, as Lipsius remarks, is
due to the eleven months which stood in the original source from
which the notice was taken, and which appears in the Liberian
catalogue. Jerome's version of the Cliroti. ascribes eight years to
his episcopate, but this, too, is quite impossible, and the date given
for his accession (the first year of Valerian) is inconsistent with
the notice which he gives m regard to Stephen. Xystus upheld
the Roman practice of accepting heretics and schismatics without
re-baptism, but he seems to have adopted a more conciliatory tone
toward those who held the opposite view than his predecessor Ste-
phen had done (cf Pontius' Vita Cypriani, chap. 14).
6 The first of Dionysius' epistles on baptism was written to
Stephen of Rome, as we learn from chap. 2, above. Four others
are mentioned by Eusebius, addressed respectively to Philemon, a
Roman presbyter (chap. 7) § i), to Dionysius of Rome {ibid. § 6),
to Xystus of Rome (chap. 9, § i), and to Xystus and the church
of Rome {ibid. § 6).
' aTToAoiicTacrSat.
8 Dionysius afterward became Xystus' successor as bishop of
Rome. See below, chap. 27, note 2.
1* Of this Philemon we know only that he was a presbyter of
Rome at this time (see below, chap. 7, § i). A fragment from
Dionysius' epistle to him on the subject of baptism is quoted in that
chapter.
' Of the life of Sabellius we know very little. He was at the
head of the Monarchian (modalistic) party in Rome during the
episcopate of Zephyrinus (198-2x7), and was there perhaps even
earlier. He is, and was already m the fourth century, commonly
called a native of Africa, but the first one directly to state this is
Basil, and the opinion seems to rest upon the fact that his views
were especially popular in Pentapolis as early as the middle of the
third century, as Dionysius says here. Hippolytus in speaking of
him does not mention his birthplace, which causes Stokes to incline
" For concerning the doctrine now agitated
in Ptolcmais of Pentapolis, — which is impious
and marked by great blasphemy against the
Almighty God, the Father, and our Lord Jesus
Christ, and contains much unbelief respecting
his Only Begotten Son and the first-born of
every creature, the Word which became man,
and a want of perception of the Holy Spirit,
— as there came to me communications from
both sides and brethren discussing the matter,
I wrote certain letters treating the subject as in-
structively as, by the help of God, I was able.^
Of these I send^ thee copies."
CHAPTER VH.
The Abominable Error of the Heretics ; the
Divine Vision of Diojiysius ; and the Eccle-
siastical Canon which he received.
In the third epistle on baptism which 1
this same Dionysius wrote to Philemon,*
the Roman presbyter, he relates the following :
*' But I examined the works and traditions of
the heretics, defiling my mind for a httle time
with their abominable opinions, but receiving
this benefit from them, that I refuted them
by myself, and detested them all the more.
And when a certain brother among the 2
presbyters restrained me, fearing that I
should be carried away with the filth of their
wickedness (for it would defile my soul), — in
which also, as I perceived, he spoke the truth,
to the opinion that he was a native of Rome. The matter, in fact,
cannot be decided. We are told by Hippolytus that Callistus led
Sabellius into heresy, but that after he became pope he excommu-
nicated him in order to gain a reputation for orthodoxy. Of the
later life of Sabellius we know nothing. His writings are no longer
extant, though there are apparently quotations from some of them
in Epiphanius, Hier. 62, and Athanasius, Contra Ariau. Oratio 4.
In the third century those Monarchians (medalists) who were
known as Patripassians in the West were called Sabellians in the
East. In the fourth and fifth centuries the Fathers used the term
Sabellianism in a general sense for various forms of Monarchianism,
all of which, however, tended in the one direction, viz. toward the
denial of any personal distinction in the Godhead, and hence the
identification of Father and Son. And so we characterize every
teaching which tends that way as Sabellianistic, although this form of
Monarchianism is really much older than Sabellius. See Harnack's
article on Monarchianism in Herzog, 2d ed. (abridged translation in
Schaff-Herzog) , and Stokes' article on Sabellius and Sabellianism
in the Did. of Christ. liiog., both of which give the literature, and
SchafTs Ch. Hist. II. p. 580 sqq., which gives the sources in full.
Neander's account deserves especial notice. Upon Eusebius' atti-
tude toward Sabellianism, see above, p. 13 sq.
2 eTrc'cTTeiAa rii'a tus itvvr\6y\v , Trapao'xoi'Tos ToO Stov, SiSacTKaKi-
KMTepov v<j>riyovfi.evo<;, iav to. avTiypa^a eTrffiyf/a. <roi. Of these let-
ters no fragments are extant. They are not to be confounded with
the four books against Sabellius, addressed to Dionysius of Rome,
and mentioned in chap. 26, below. It is possible, as Dittrich sug-
gests, that they included the letters on the same subject to Ammon,
Telesphorus, Euphranor, and others which Eusebius mentions in
that chapter. Upon Dionysius' attitude toward Sabellianism, see
above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note i.
■I eniix>l/a. The epistolary aorist as used here does not refer to
a past time, but to the time of the writing of the letter, which is
past when the person to whom the letter is sent reads the words.
The same word (en-em/^a) is used in this sense in Acts xxiii. 30,
2 Cor. ix. 3, Eph. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8. Cf. the remarks of Bishop
Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians, VI. 11.
■ Of this Philemon we know no more than we can gather from
this chapter. Upon Dionysius' position on the re-baptism of heretics,
see above, chap. 2, note 4, and upon his other epistles on that sub-
ject, see chap. 5, note 6.
^96
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
tvii. 7.
— a vision sent from God came and strength-
ened me. And the word which came to
3 me commanded me, saying distinctly, 'Read
everything which thou canst take in hand,-
for thou art able to correct and prove all ', and
this has been to thee from the beginning the
cause of thy faith.' I received the vision as
agreeing with the apostolic word, which says
to them that are stronger, ' Be skillful money-
changers.' " ^
4 Then after saying some things concerning
all the heresies he adds : " I received this
rule and ordinance from our blessed father,'*
Heraclas.* For those who came over from
heresies, although they had apostatized from the
Church, — or rather had not apostatized, but
seemed to meet with them, yet were charged
with resorting to some false teacher, — when he
had expelled them from the Church he did not
receive them back, though they entreated for it,
until they had publicly reported all things which
they had heard from their adversaries ; but then
he received them without requiring of them
another baptism.^ For they had formerly re-
ceived the Holy Spirit from him."
^ Dionysius, in following this vision, was but showing himself a
genuine disciple of his master Origen, and exhibiting the true spirit
of the earlier Alexandrian school.
3 ujs a7roo'ToAt*ci7 (l>u)Vfj (Tvvrpi\ov . . . yu'ea^e SoKtjtxot TpaTre^trat.
This saying, sometimes in the brief form given here, sometimes as
part of a longer sentence (e.g. in Clement of Alex. Strom. I. 28,
■ytVetr^e 6e honnxoi TpaTre^irat, Ta )u.er aTToSoKt/ita^oi'Te?, to 6€ KaXov
Koreyoi'Tcs), appears very frequently in the writings of the Fathers.
In some cases it is cited (in connection with i Thess. v. 21, 22) on
the authority of Paul (in the present case as an " apostolic word "),
in other cases on the authority of " Scripture" (rj ypaifi-q, or ytypa.-
Trrai, or 9eio9 Aoyos), in still more cases as an utterance of Christ
himself. There can be little doubt that Christ really did utter these
words, and that the words used by Paul in i Thess. v. 21, 22, were
likewise spoken by Christ in the same connection. We may, in
fact, with considerable confidence recognize in these words part of
a genuine extra-canonical saying of Christ, which was widely cur-
rent in the early Church. We are to explain the words then not
as so many have done, as merely based upon the words of Christ,
reported in Matt. xxv. 12 sq., or upon the words of Paul already
referred to, but as an actual utterance of the Master. More-
over, we may, since Resch's careful discussion of the whole sub-
ject of the Agrapha (or extra-canonical sayings of Christ), with
considerable confidence assume that these words were handed
down to post-apostolic times not in an apocryphal gospel, nor
by mere oral tradition, but in the original Hebrew Matthew, of
which Papias and many others tell us, and which is probably to be
looked upon as a pre-canonical gospel, -ivitSi the " Ur-Marcus" the
main source of our present gospels of Matthew and Luke, and
ihroHgh the " Ur-Marcus" one of the sources of our present Gospel
of Mark. Looked upon in this light these words quoted by Dio-
nysius become of great interest to us. They (or a part of the same
saying) are quoted more frequently by the Fathers than any other of
the Agrapha (Resch,on p. 116 sq. gives 69 instances). Their in-
terpretation, in connection with the words of Paul in i Thess. v.
21, 22, has been very satisfactorily discussed by Hansel in the
Studien uiid Kritiken, 1836, p. 170 sq. They undoubtedly mean
that we are to test and to distinguish between the true and the false,
the good and the bad, as a skillful money-changer distinguishes
good and bad coins. For a full discussion of this utterance, and for
an exhibition of the many other patristic passages in which it
occurs, .see the magnificent work of Alfred Resch, Agrapha: A iissrr-
canonische Ez'angelieti/raginentc, in Gebhardt and Harnack's
Texte und C/n/frsHc/tungen, Bd. V. Heft 4, Leipzig, i88q; the most
complete and satisfactory discussion of the whole subject of the
Agrapha which we have.
■■ TTaira. According to Suicer (T/irsaurus) all bishops in the
Occident as late as the fifth century were called Papa as a mark of
honor, and though the term by that time had begun to be used in
a distinctive sense of the bishop of Rome, the older usage continued
in parts of the West outside of Italy, until Gregory VH. (a.d.
1075) forbade the use of the name for any other than the i)opc. In
the East the word was used for a long time as the especial title of
the bishops of Alexandria and of Rome (see Suicer's Thesaurus
and Gieseler's Church Hist. Harper's edition, L p, 499).
Again, after treating the question thor- 5
oughly, he adds : " I have learned also that
this " is not a novel practice introduced in Africa
alone, but that even long ago in the times of the
bishops before us this opinion has been adopted
in the most populous churches, and in synods of
the brethren in Iconium and Synnada,** and by
many others. To overturn their counsels and
throw them into strife and contention, I cannot
endure. For it is said,^ * Thou shalt not remove
thy neighbor's landmark, which thy fathers have
set.' " ^"
His fourth epistle on baptism ^ was writ- 6
ten to Dionysius ^^ of Rome, who was then a
presbyter, but not long after received the epis-
copate of that church. It is evident from what
is stated of him by Dionysius of Alexandria,
that he also was a learned and admirable man.
Among other things he writes to him as follows
concerning Novatus :
CHAPTER Vni.
The Heterodoxy of Novatus.
" For with good reason do we feel hatred
toward Novatian,' who has sundered the Church
and drawn some of the brethren into impiety
and blasphemy, and has introduced impious
teaching concerning God, and has calumniated
our most compassionate Lord Jesus Christ as
unmerciful. And besides all this he rejects the
'' On Heraclas, see Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2.
" Compare Cyprian's epistle to Quintus concerning the baptism
of heretics {Ep. 70, al. 71). Cyprian there takes the position stated
here, that those who have been baptized in the Church and have
afterward gone over to heresy and then returned again to the Church
are not to be re-baptized, but to be received with the laying on of
hands only. This of course does not at all invalidate the position
of Cyprian and the others who re-baptized heretics, for they bap-
tized heretics not because they had been heretics, but because they
had not received true baptism, nor indeed any baptism at all, which
it was impossible, in their view, for a heretic to give. They there-
fore repudiated (as Cyprian does in the epistle referred to) the term
re-baptism, denying that they rf-baptized anybody.
" Namely the re-baptism (or, as they would say, the baptistii) of
those who had received baptism only at the hands of heretics stand-
ing without the communion of the Church.
8 Iconium was the principal city of Lycaonia, and Synnada a
city of Phrygia. The synod of Iconium referred to here is men-
tioned also by Firmilian in his epistle to Cyprian, §§ 7 and 19
{Cypria}ii Ep. 74, al. 75). From that epistle we learn that the
synod was attended by bishops from Phrygia, Cilicia, Galatia, and
other countries, and that heretical baptism was entirely rejected by
it. Moreover, we learn that Firmilian himself was present at the
.synod, and that it was held a considerable time before the writing
of his epistle. This leads us to place the synod between 230 (on
Firmilian's dates, see above, P>k. VI. chap. 26, note 3) and 240 or
250. Since it took place a considerable time before Firmilian wrote,
it can hardly have been held much later than 240. Of the synod of
Synnada, we know nothing. It very likely took place about the
same time. See Hefele's Concilioigcsch. I. p. 107 sq. Dionysius
was undoubtedly correct in appealing to ancient custom for the
practice which he supported (see above, chap. 2, note 3).
" <()))(ri, i.e. " The Scripture saith."
'" Deut. xix. 14.
" On Dionysius' other epistles on baptism, see above, chap. 5,
note 5.
■' On Dionysius of Rome, see below, chap. 27, note 2.
' The majority of the M.SS. have NoowaTiariu, a few Noyoriai'ij).
This is the only place in which the name Novatian occurs in Kuse-
bius' History, and here it is used not by Kusebius himself but
by Dionysius. Euscbius, in referring to the same man, always calls
him Novatus (sec above, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note i). Upon Novatian
and his schism, sec the same note.
VII. 9]
UNGODLY BAPTISM OF HERETICS.
297
holy baptism,- and overturns the faith and con-
fession which precede it/ antl entirely banishes
from them the Holy Ghost, if indeed there was
any hope that he would remain or return to
them." "
CHAPTER IX.
The Ungodly Baptism of the Heretics.
1 His fifth epistle ^ was written to Xystus,-
bishop of Rome. In this, after saying
2 AouTpor. Th.it Novatian re-baptized all those who came over
to him from the Church is stated by Cyprian in his epistle to Jubaia-
nus, § 2 (No. 72, al. 73). His principle was similar to that which
later actuated the Donatists, namely, that baptism is valid only
when performed by priests of true and approved Christian character.
Denying, tlien, that those who defiled themselves and did despite to
God's holy Church by communing with the lapsed were true Chris-
tians, he could not do otherwise than reject their baptism as quite
invalid.
' It was the custom fiom a very early period to cause the candi-
date for baptism to go through a certain course of training of greater
or less length, and to require him to assent to a formulated state-
ment of belief before the administration of the sacred rite. Thus we
learn from the Didache that even as early as the very beginning of
the second century the custom of pre-baptismal training was already
in vogue, and we know that by the third century the system of
catechetical instruction was a highly developed thing, extending
commonly over two to three years. Candidates for baptism were
then known as catechumens. So far as a baptismal creed or con-
fession of f,iith is concerned, Caspari (see his great work, Studicn
ztir Gcsch. Jes Tau/symbols) has shown that such a creed was in
use in the Roman church before the middle of the second century,
and that it formed the basis of what we know as the Apostles' Creed,
which in the form in which we have it is a later development.
Inasmuch as Novatian, so far as we can learn, was perfectly
orthodox on matters of faith, he would not have cared to make any
alteration in such a creed as the present Apostles' Creed. Exactly
what Dionysius means in the present case is not certain. It is pos-
sible that he is simply speaking in general terms, assuming that if
Novatian does not accept the Church baptism, he must overturn and
pervert with it the instruction which had preceded: or it may be
that he is thinking of that form of confession to which the candi-
date was required to give his assent, according to Cyprian, EJ>. 69
(a/. 70) : credis in vitam tEtcrnain et rcmhsionon peccatoricin
per sanctam ecclesiam ? " Dost thou believe in eternal life and
remission of sins through the holy Church? " The latter is the view
of Valesius, who is followed by all others that have discussed the
passage so far as I am aware. Of course Novatian could not put
the last clause of this question to his converts, and hence Dionysius
may have been thinking of this omission in using the words he does.
At the same time I confess myself unable to agree with others in
interpreting him thus. In the first place, it is, to say the least, very
doubtful whether the question quoted above from Cyprian formed
an article in the baptismal confession of the Church in general. It
does not appear in the Apostles' Creed, and can therefore hardly have
formed a part of the earlier Roman formula which underlay that.
And so far as I am aware there are no traces of the use of such an
article in the church of Alexandria. In the second place, Dionysius'
language seems to me too general to admit of such a particular
application. Had he been thinking of one especial article of the
confession, as omitted or altered by Novatian, he would, in my
opinion, have given some indication of it. I am, therefore, inclined
to take his words in the most general sense, suggested as possible
just above.
* These last clauses are, according to Valesius, fraught with
difficulty. He interprets the avruiv ("entirely banished from
them ") as referring to the lapst, and interpreted thus I find the
passage not simply difficult, as he does, but incomprehensible. But
I confess myself again unable to accept his interpretation. To me
the aiiTwi' seems not to refer to the lapsi, to whom there has been
no direct reference in this fragment quoted by Eusebius, but rather
to Novatian's converts, to whom reference is made in the previous
sentence, and who are evidently in the mind of the writer in refer-
ring to Novatian's baptism in the first clause of the present sentence.
It seems to me that Dionysius means simply to say that in rejecting
the baptism of the Church, and the " faith and confession which pre-
cede it," Novatian necessarily drove away from his converts the
Holy Spirit, who works in and through right confession and true
baptism. The meaning of the words " if, indeed, there was any
hope," &c., thus becomes very clear; Dionysius does not believe, of
course, that the Holy Spirit woidd remain with those who should
leave the Church to go with Novatian, but even if he should remain,
he would be driven entirely away from them when they blasphemed
him and denied his work, by rejecting the true baptism and submit-
ting to another baptism without the Church.
1 i.e. his fifth epistle on the subject of baptism (see above, chap.
much against the heretics, he relates a certain
occurrence of his time as follows :
" For truly, brother, I am in need of counsel,
and I ask thy judgment concerning a certain
matter which has come to me, fearing that
I may be in error. For one of the breth- 2
ren that assemble, who has long been
considered a believer, and who, before my ordi-
nation, and I think before the appointment of
the blessed Heraclas,'' was a member of the
congregation, was present with those who were
recently baptized. And when he heard the
questions and answers,'* he came to me weeping,
and bewailing himself; and falling at my feet
he acknowledged and protested that the baj)-
tism with which he had been baptized among
the heretics was not of this character, nor in
any respect like this, because it was full of
impiety and blasphemy.^ And he said that 3
his soul was now pierced with sorrow, and
that he had not confidence to lift his eyes to
God, because he had set out from those impi-
ous words and deeds. And on this account he
besought that he might receive this most per-
fect purification, and reception and grace.
But I did not dare to do this; and said 4
that his long communion was sufficient for
this. For I should not dare to renew from the
beginning one who had heard the giving of
thanks and joined in repeating the Amen ; who
had stood by the table and had stretched forth
his hands to receive the blessed food ; and who
had received it, and partaken for a long while
of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But I exhorted him to be of good courage, and
to approach the partaking of the saints with
firm faith and good hope. But he does not 5
cease lamenting, and he shudders to ap-
proach the table, and scarcely, though entreated,
does he dare to be present at the prayers." *^
5, note 6). The sixth, likewise addressed to Xystus, Is mentioned
below in § 6.
- On Xystus II. of Rome, see chap 5, note 5.
3 On Heraclas, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2.
* See the previous chapter, note 3.
'•< The reference here, of course, is not to the Novatians, because
this old man, who had been a regular attendant upon the orthodox
Church since the time of Heraclas, if not before, had been bap-
tized by the heretics long before Novatian arose. The epistle seems
to contain no reference to Novatian; at least, the fragment which
we have is dealing with an entirely different subject.
^ Dittrich finds in this epistle an evidence that Dionysius was
not fully convinced of the advisability of re-baptizing converts from
heretical bodies, that he wavered in fact between the Eastern and
the Roman practices, but I am unable to see that the epistle implies
anything of the kind. It is not that he doubts the necessity of re-
baptism in ordinary cases, — he is not discussing that subject at all,
— the question is, does long communion itself take the place of bap-
tism; does not a man, unwittingly baptized, gain through such corn-
munion the grace from the Spirit which is ordinarily conveyed in
baptism, and might not the rite of baptism at so late a date be an
insult to the Spirit, who might have been working through the sac-
rament of the eucharist during all these years? It is this question
which Dionysius desires to have Xystus assist him in answering —
a question which has nothing to do, in Dionysius' mind, with the
validity or non-validity of heretical baptism, for it will be noticed
that he does not base his refusal to baptize the man upon the fact
that he has already been baptized, partially, or imperfectly, or in
any other way, but solely upon the fact that he has for so long been
partaking of the eucharist.
298
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. 9.
6 Besides these there is also extant another
epistle of the same man on baptism, ad-
dressed by him and his parish to Xystus and
the church at Rome. In this he considers the
question then agitated with extended argument.
And there is extant yet another after these,
addressed to Dionysius of Rome,^ concerning
Lucian.* So much with reference to these.
CHAPTER X.
Valerian and the Persecution under him.
1 Gallus and the other rulers,^ having held
the government less than two years, were
overthrown, and Valerian, with his son Gal-
2 lienus, received the empire. The circum-
stances which Dionysius relates of him we
may learn from his epistle to Hermammon,^
in which he gives the following account :
" And in like manner it is revealed to John ;
* For there was given to him,' he says, ' a mouth
speaking great things and blasphemy ; and there
was given unto him authority and forty and
3 two months.' ^ It is wonderful that both of
these things occurred under Valerian ; and
it is the more remarkable in this case when we
consider his previous conduct, for he had been
mild and friendly toward the men of God, for
none of the emperors before him had treated
them so kindly and favorably; and not even
those who were said openly to be Christians^
received them with such manifest hospitality and
friendliness as he did at the beginning of his
reign. For his entire house was filled with
4 pious persons and was a church of God.
But the teacher and ruler of the synagogue
of the Magi from Egypt ^ persuaded him to
' On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.
' So many Lucians of this time are known to us that we cannot
speak with certainty as to the identity of the one referred to here.
But it may perhaps be suggested that the well-known Carthaginian
Confessor is meant, who caused Cyprian so much trouble by grant-
ing letters of pardon indiscriminately to the lapsed, in defiance of
regular custom and of Cyprian's authority (see Cypriarti Ep. 16,
17, 20, 21, 22; al. 23, 26, 21, 22, 27). If this be the Lucian referred
to, the epistle must have discussed the lapsi, and the conditions
upon which they were to be received again into the Church. That
the epistle did not, like the one mentioned just before, have to do
with the subject of baptism, seems clear from the fact that it is not
numbered among the epistles on that subject, as six others are.
' oi aM.(/>'t Toi/ TaAAoi'. Euscbius is undoubtedly referring to
Gallus, Volusian, his son and co-regent, and jEmilian, his enemy
and successor. Gallus himself, with his son Volusian, whom he
made Csesar and co-regent, reigned from the latter part of the year
251 to about the middle of the year 253, when the empire was usurped
by iEmilian, and he and his son were slain. yEmilian was recog-
nized by the senate as the legal emperor, but within four months
Valerian, Gallus' leading jjeneral, — who had already been pro-
claimed emperor by his legions, — revenged the murder of Gallus
and came to the throne. Valerian reigned until 260, when his son
Gallienus, who had been associated with him in the government
from the beginning, succeeded him and reigned until 268.
* Upon this epistle, see above, chap, i, note 3.
3 Rev. xiii. 5.
* Philip was the only emperor before this time that was openly
said to have been a Christian (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 34, note 2).
Alexander Severus was very favorable to the Christians, and Euse-
bius may have been thinking of him also in this connection.
'' viz. Macrianus, one of the ablest of Valerian's generals, who
had acquired great influence over him and had been raised by him
change his course, urging him to slay and perse-
cute pure and holy men ^ because they opposed
and hindered the corrupt and abominable in-
cantations. For there are and there were men
who, being present and being seen, though they
only breathed and spoke, were able to scatter
the counsels of the sinful demons. And he in-
duced him to practice initiations and abominable
sorceries and to offer unacceptable sacrifices ;
to slay innumerable children and to sacrifice
the offspring of unhappy fathers ; to divide the
bowels of new-born babes and to mutilate and
cut to pieces the creatures of God, as if by such
practices they could attain happiness."
He adds to this the following : " Splendid 5
indeed were the thank-offerings which Mac-
rianus brought them '' for the empire which was
the object of his hopes. He is said to have
been formerly the emperor's general finance
minister^; yet he did nothing praiseworthy or
of general benefit,^ but fell under the pro-
to the highest position in the army and made his chief counselor.
Dionysius is the only one to tell us that he was the chief of the
Egyptian magicians. Gibbon doubts the statement, but Macrianus
may well have been an Egyptian by birth and devoted, as so many
of the Egyptians were, to arts of magic, and have gained power over
Valerian in this way which he could have gained in no other. It is
not necessary of course to understand Dionysius' words as implying
that Macrianus was officially at the head of the body of F.gyptian
magicians, but simply that he was the greatest, or one of the greatest,
of them. He figures in our other sources simply as a military and
political character, but it was natural for Dionysius to emphasize
his addiction to magic, though he could hardly have done it had
Macrianus' practices in this respect not been commonly known.
'' The persecution which the Christians suffered under Valerian
was more terrible than any other except that of Diocletian. Numer-
ous calamities took place during his reign. The barbarians were
constantly invading ant} ravaging the borders of the empire, and on
the east the Persians did great damage. Still worse was the terrible
plague which had begun in the reign of Decius and raged for about
fifteen years. All these calamities aroused the religious fears of the
emperor. Dionysius tells us that he was induced by Macrianus to
have recourse to human sacrifices and other similar means of pene-
trating the events of the future, and when these rites failed, the
presence of Christians — irreligious men hated by the gods — in the
imperial family was urged as the reason for the failure, and thus the
hostility of the emperor was aroused against all Christians. As a
consequence an edict was published in 257 requiring all persons to
conform at least outwardly to the religion of Rome on the penalty
of exile. And at the same time the Christians were prohibited from
holding religious services, upon pain of death. In 258 followed a
rescript of terrible severity. Only the clergy and the higher ranks
of the laity were attacked, but they were sentenced to death if they
refused to repent, and the clergy, apparently, whether they repented
or not. The persecution continued until Valerian's captivity, which
took place probably late in 260. The dates during this period are very
uncertain, but Dionysius' statement that the persecution continued
forty-two months is probably not far out of the way; from late in the
year 257 to the year 261, when it was brought to an end by Gallienus.
In Egypt and the Orient the persecution seems to have continued
a few months longer than elsewhere (see chap. 13, note 3). The
martyrs were very numerous during the Valerian persecution, espe-
cially in Rome and Africa. The most noted were Cyprian and
Xystus II. On the details of the persecution, see Tillemont, //. E.
IV. p. I sq.
' i.e. the evil spirits. As Valesius remarks, the meaning is that
since the evil spirits had promised him power, he showed his grati-
tude to them by inducing the Emperor Valerian to persecute the
Christians.
" erri tHiv <a96Xov Xoyoiv. The phrase is equivalent to the Latin
Ratioiialis or Procjiraior sumvtci- rci, an official who had charge
of the imperial finances, and who might be called either treasurer or
finance minister. The position which Macrianus held seems to
have been the highest civil position in the empire (cf. Valesius'
note ad locum). Gibbon calls him Pra;torian Prefect, and since he
was the most famous of Valerian's generals, he doubtless held that
position also, though I am not aware that any of our sources state
that he did.
* The Greek contains a play upon the words »cafldAou and Aoyo?
in this sentence. It reads 05 npoTfpov ixiv t-nX tuiv KaOoKov Xnytov
Afyo^fi'o? tii'at ^a(riAe(u?, ovhiv evKoyov oufit KaOoXiKov ^(f}p6i'r](Tfi\
The play upon the word xaSdAou continues in the next sentence,
VIl. II.]
THE PERSECUTION OF VALERIAN.
299
6 phetic saying, ' Woe unto those who prophesy
from their own heart and do not consider
the general good.' '" For he did not perceive
the general J'rovidence, nor did he look for tlie
judgment of Him who is before all, and through
all, and over all. ^\'herefore he became an en-
emy of his Catholic '^ Church, and alienated
ami estrangeil himself from the compassion of
God, and lied as far as possible from his salva-
tion. In this he showed the truth of his own
name. -
7 And again, farther on he says : " For Vale-
rian, being instigated to such acts by this
man, was given over to insults and reproaches,
according to what was said by Isaiah : * They
have chosen their own ways and their abomina-
tions in which their soul delighted ; I also will
choose their delusions and will render unto
8 them their sins.'^^ But this man" madly
desired the kingdom though unworthy of it,
and being unable to put the royal garment on
his crippled body, set forward his two sons to
bear their father's sins.^^ For concerning them
the declaration which God spoke was plain,
' Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth genera-
9 tion of them that hate me.' ^^ For heaping
on the heads of his sons his own evil desires,
in which he had met with success,^^ he wiped off
upon thern his own wickedness and hatred toward
God."
Dionysius relates these things concerning
Valerian.
where the Greek runs to Ka06\ov inrj ^Xinovaiv , and in the follow-
ing, where it reads ov yap crui'^/ce riji' xaOdAou irpdi'otai'. Again in
the next sentence the adjective icafloAiKij occurs: "his universal
Church." 1" Ezek. xiii. 3.
11 KaOoAiK^?, " catholic " in the sense of " general " or " univer-
sal," the play upon the word still continuing.
^- MaKpiai'o;. The Greek word naxpaf means " far," " at a
distance."
13 Isa. Ixvi. 3, 4. '* i.e. Macrianus.
15 Valerian reposed complete confidence in Macrianus and fol-
lowed his advice in the conduct of the wars against the Persians.
The result was that by Macrianus' " weak or wicked counsels the
imperial army was betrayed into a situation where valor and military
skill were equally unavailing." (Gibbon.) Dionysius, in chap. 23,
below, directly states that Macrianus betrayed Valerian, and this is
the view of the case commonly taken. Valerian fell into the hands
of the Persians (late in 260 a.d.), and Macrianus was proclaimed
emperor by his troops, and on account of his lameness (as both
Dionysius and Zonaras put it) or his age, associated with him his
two sons, Quietus and Macrianus. After some months he left his
son Quietus in charge of Syria, and designing to make himself
master of the Occident, marched with his son Macrianus against
Gallienus, but was met in lUyrium by the Pretender Aureolus (262)
and defeated, and both himself and son slain. His son Quietus
meanwhile was besieged in Edessa by the Pretender Odenathus and
slain. Cf. Tillemont's Histoire des Empcrciirs, III. p. 333 sq.
and p. 340 sq. i" Ex. xx. 5.
" TjuTiixti. Three MSS., followed by .Stephanus, Valesius, Bur-
ton, Stroth (and by the translators Gloss, Cruse, and Salmond in the
Anie-Nicene leathers, VI. p. 107), read i^TOxtt, "failed" ("in
whose gratification he failed "). t^vTv^^n., however, is supported by
overwhelming MS. authority, and is adopted by Schwegler and
Heinichen, and approved by Valesius in his notes. It seems at first
sight the harder reading, and is, therefore, in itself to be preferred
to the easier reading, rirvxei.. Although it seems harder, it is really
fully in accord with what has preceded. Macrianus had not made
himself emperor (if Dionysius is to be believed), but he had suc-
ceeded fully in his desires, in that he had raised his sons to the
purple. If he had acquired such power as to be able to do that, he
must have given them the position, because he preferred to govern
in that way; and if that be so, he could hardly be said to have failed
in his desires.
CHAPTER XL
The pA'ciits loJiich happened at this Time to
Dionysius and those in T^gypt.
P.UT as regards the persecution which 1
prevailed so fiercely in his reign, and the
sufferings which Dionysius with others endured
on account of piety toward the God of the uni-
verse, his own wonls shall show, which he wrote
in answer to Germanus,' a contem])orary bishtjp
who was endeavoring to slander him. His
statement is as follows :
"Truly I am in danger of falling into 2
great folly and stupidity through being
forced to relate the wonderful providence of
God toward us. 13ut since it is said ^ that * it is
good to keep close the secret of a king, but it
is honorable to reveal the works of God,' ^ I will
join issue with the violence of Germanus.
I went not alone to yEmilianus ; * but my 3
fellow-presbyter, Maximus,^ and the dea-
cons Faustus,*^ Eusebius,^ and Chaeremon,** and
a brother who was present from Rome,
went with me. But ^milianus did not at 4
first say to me : * Hold no assemblies ; ' '^
for this was superfluous to him, and the last
thing to one who was seeking to accomplish the
first. For he was not concerned about our as-
sembling, but that we ourselves should not be
Christians. And he commanded me to give
this up ; supposing if I turned from it, the
others also would follow me. But I an- 5
swered him, neither unsuitably nor in many
1 On Germanus, and Dionysius' epistle to him, see above, Bk.
VI. chap. 40, note 2.
2 Literally " it says " ((|)j)o-i), a common formula in quoting from
Scripture.
•> Tob. xii. 7.
* This /Eniilianus, prefect of Egypt, under whom the persecu-
tion was carried on in .Alexandria during Valerian's reign, later,
during the reign of Gallienus, was induced (or compelled) by the
troops of Alexandria to revolt against Gallienus, and assume the
purple himself. He was defeated, however, by Theodotus, Gal-
lienus' general, and was put to death in prison, in what year we do
not know. Cf. Tillemont's Nisi, dcs Emp. III. p. 342 sq.
0 Maximus is mentioned a number of times in this chapter in
connection with the persecutimi. After the death of Dionysius he
succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria, and as such is referred to
below, in chaps. 28, 30, and 32. For the dates of his episcopate,
see chap. 28, note xo.
" On Faustus, see above, Bk. VI . chap. 40, note 10.
' In regard to this deacon Eusebius, who later became bishop of
Laodicea, see chap. 32, note 12.
* Chairemon is mentioned three times in the present chapter, but
we have no other reliable information in regard to him.
'j We may gather from § 11, below, that Germanus had accused
Dionysius of neglecting to hold the customary assemblies, and of
seeking safety by flight. Valesius, in his note ad locum, remarks,
"Dionysius was accused by Germanus of neglecting to hold the
assemblies of tlie brethren before the beginning of the persecution,
and of providing for his own safety by flight. For as often as per-
secution arose the bishops were accustomed first to convene the
people, that they might exhort them to hold fast to their faith in
Christ. Then they baptized infants and catechumens, that they
might not depart this life without baptism, and they gave the
eucharist to the faithful, because they did not know how long the
persecution might last." Valesius refers for confirmation of his
statements to an epistle sent to Pope Hormisdas, by Germanus and
others, in regard to Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica (circa a.d.
519). I have not been able to verify the reference. The custom
mentioned by Valesius is certainly a most natural one, and there-
fore Valesius' statements are very likely quite true, though there
seems to be little direct testimony upon which to rest them.
300
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Vli. lit.
words : ' We must obey God rather than men.' ^'^
And I testified openly that I worshiped the one
only God, and no other ; and that I would not
turn from this nor would I ever cease to be a
Christian. Thereupon he commanded us to go
to a village near the desert, called Cephro."
6 But listen to the very words which were
spoken on both sides, as they were re-
corded :
" Dionysius, Faustus, Maximus, Marcellus,^-
and Chseremon being arraigned, yEmilianus the
prefect said : ' I have reasoned verbally with you
concerning the clemency which our rulers
7 have shown to you; for they have given
you the opportunity to save yourselves, if
you will turn to that which is according to
nature, and worship the gods that preserve their
empire, and forget those that are contrary to
nature. ''^ What then do you say to this ? For
I do not think that you will be ungrateful for
their kindness, since they would turn you to
8 a better course.' Dionysius replied : ' Not
all people worship all gods ; but each one
those whom he approves. We therefore rever-
ence and worship the one God, the Maker of
all ; who hath given the empire to the divinely
favored and august Valerian and Gallienus ; and
we pray to him continually for their em-
9 pire, that it may remain unshaken.' ^mil-
ianus, the prefect, said to them : ' But who
forbids you to worship him, if he is a god, to-
gether with those who are gods by nature. For
ye have been commanded to reverence the gods,
and the gods whom all know.* Dionysius
10 answered: 'We worship no other.' ^milia-
nus, the prefect, said to them : ' I see that
you are at once ungrateful, and insensible to the
kindness of our sovereigns. Wherefore ye shall
not remain in this city. But ye shall be sent
into the regions of Libya, to a place called
Cephro. For I have chosen this place at the
command of our sovereigns, and it shall by no
means be permitted you or any others, either to
hold assemblies, or to enter into the so-
il called cemeteries." But if any one shall be
seen without the place which I have com-
manded, or be found in any assembly, he will
bring peril on himself. For suitable punishment
shall not fail. Go, therefore where ye have been
ordered.'
'" Acts V. 2Q.
" Wc Icirn from § lo, below, that Cephro was in Libya. Be-
yond this nothing is known of the place so far as I am aware.
" This Marcclhis, the only one not mentioned in § 3, above, is
an otherwise unknown person.
'3 Tuf jrapa c/juffii'. That the tuv refers to "gods" (viz. the
Rods of the Christians, ./Fmilianus thinking of them as plural) seems
clear, both on account of the Oioix; just preceding, and also in view
of the fact that in § 9 wc have the phrase twk Kara. <t>v<Tiv 6eiov. A
contrast, therefore, is drawn in the ])resent case between the gods
of the heathen and those of the Christians.
'♦ (toiMlTTJpio ; literally, " sleeping-places." The word w.as used
only in this sense in classic Greek; but the Christians, looking upon
death only as a sleep, early applied the name to their burial places;
"And he hastened me away, though I was
sick, not granting even a day's respite. What
opportunity then did I have, either to hold as-
semblies, or not to hold them ? " ^^
Farther on he says : " But through the 12
help of the Lord we did not give up the
open assembly. But I called together the more
diligently those who were in the city, as if I
were with them ; being, so to speak,^" ' absent in
body but present in spirit.' " But in Cephro a
large church gathered with us of the brethren
that followed us from the city, and those that
joined us from Egypt ; and there ' God
opened unto us a door for the Word."'* At 13
first we were persecuted and stoned ; but
afterwards not a few of the heathen forsook the
idols and turned to God. For until this time
they had not heard the Word, since it was
then first sown by us. And as if God had 14
brought us to them for this purpose, when
we had performed this ministry he transferred
us to another place. For ^milianus, as it ap-
peared, desired to transport us to rougher and
more Libyan-like places ; ^^ so he commanded
them to assemble from all quarters in Mareotis,^
and assigned to them different villages through-
out the country. But he ordered us to be placed
nearer the highway that we might be seized first.^^
For evidently he arranged and prepared matters
so that whenever he wished to seize us he
could take all of us without difficulty. When 15
I was first ordered to go to Cephro I did
not know where the place was, and had scarcely
ever heard the name ; yet I went readily and
cheerfully. But when I was told that I was to
remove to the district of Colluthion,^ those
hence /Emilian speaks of them as the " so-called (/caAoujuei-a)
cemeteries." " See above, note 9.
"^ u)? ein-eii', a reading approved by Valesius in his notes, and
adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen. This and the readings a>s
el-nev "as he said" (adopted by Stroth,Zimmermann,and Laemmer),
and (US fiirov, " as I said" (adopted by Stephanus, Valesius in his
text, and Burton), are about et|ually supported by MS. authority,
while some MSB. read ws eXnev o aTrdtrToAos, " as the apostle said."
It is impossible to decide with any degree of assurance between the
first three readings.
" I Cor. v. 3.
'* Col. iv. 3.
'" AipuKojTepou? TOTTOu?. Libya was an indefinite term among
the ancients for that part of Africa which included the Great Desert
and all the unexplored country lying west and south of it. Almost
nothing was known about the country, and the desert and the regions
beyond were peopled by the fancy with all sorts of terrible monsters,
and were looked upon as the theater of the most dire forces, natu-
ral and supernatural. As a consequence, the term " Libyan "
became a synonym for all that was most disagreeable and dreadful
in nature.
-" Mareotis, or Mareia, or Maria, was one of the land districts
into which Egypt was divided. A lake, a town situated on the shore
of the lake, and the district, in which they lay, all bore the same
name. The district Mareotis lay just south of Alexandria, but did
not include it, for Alexandria and Ptolcmais formed an independent
sphere of administration sharply separated from the thirty-six land
districts of the country'. Cf. I'.k. IL chap. 17, notes loand 12, above.
Mommsen {Roman Provinces, Scribner's ed. Vol. IL p. 255) re-
marks that these land districts, like the cities, became the basis of
episcopal dioceses. This we should expect to be the case, but I am
not aware that we can prove it to have been regularly so, at any
rate not during the earlier centuries. Cf. e.g. Wiltsch's Geography
and Statistics 0/ the Church, London ed., 1. p. 192 .sq.
-' i^/xa; hi fjikWov iv 6S<f icai npiitTOVi xaraAiji^flrjO'O/iei'ous
eTaftv.
2J TO KoAAovdtui>o? (sc. ftepTj), i.e. the parts or regions of Collu-
thion. Of Colluthionj so far as I am aware, nothing is known. It
VII. II.]
THE SUFFERINGS OF DIONYSIUS.
301
who were present know how I was affected.
16 For here I will accuse myself. At first I was
grieveil and greatly disturbed ; for though
these places were better known and more familiar
to us, yet the country was said to be destitute
of brethren and of men of character, and to be
exposed to the annoyances of travelers and
17 incursions of robbers. P.ut I was comforted
when the brethren reminded me that it was
nearer the city, and that while Cephro afforded
us much intercourse with the brethren from
Egypt, so that we were able to extend the
Church more widely, as this place was nearer
the city we should enjoy more frequently the
sight of those who were truly beloved and most
closely related and dearest to us. For they
would come and remain, and special meetings ^^
could be held, as in the more remote suburbs.
And thus it turned out."
After other matters he writes again as fol-
lows of the things which happened to him :
18 '• Germanus indeed boasts of many confes-
sions. He can speak forsooth of many
adversities which he himself has endured. But
is he able to reckon up as many as we can, of
sentences, confiscations, proscriptions, plunder-
ing of goods, loss of dignities, contempt of
worldly glory, disregard for the flatteries of gov-
ernors and of councilors, and patient endur-
ance of the threats of opponents, of outcries, of
perils and persecutions, and wandering and dis-
tress, and all kinds of tribulation, such as came
upon me under Decius and Sabinus,-^ and such
as continue even now under ^Emilianus? But
where has Germanus been seen ? And what
19 account is there of him? But I turn from
this great folly into which I am falling on
account of Germanus. And for the same reason
I desist from giving to the brethren who know it
an account of everything which took place."
20 The same writer also in the epistle to
Domitius and Didymus^ mentions some
seems to have been a town, possibly a section of country in the
district of Mareotis. Nicephorus spells the word with a single /,
which Valesius contends is more correct because the word is de-
rived from Colutho, which was not an uncommon name in Egypt
(see Valesius' note ad locjuii).
'3 Kara, iif'pos avvayiMyai, literally, " partial meetings." It is
plain enough from this that persons living in the suburbs were
allowed to hold special services in their homes or elsewhere, and
were not compelled always to attend the city church, which might
be a number of miles distant. It seems to me doubtful whether this
passage is sufficient to warrant Valesius' conclusion, that in the time
of Dionysius there was but one church in Alexandria, where the
brethren met for worship. It may have been so, but the words do
not appear to indicate, as Valesius thinks they do, that matters were
in a different state then from that which existed in the time of
Athanasius, who, in his Apology to Constantitis, § 14 sq., expressly
speaks of a number of church buildings in Alexandria.
^^ Sabinus has been already mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, § 2,
from which passage we may gather that he held the same position
under Decius which ./Emilianus held under Valerian (see note 3 on
the chapter referred to).
25 We learn from chap. 20, below, that this epistle to Domitius
and Didymus was one of Dionysius' regular festal epistles (for there
is no ground for assuming that a different epistle is referred to in
that chapter). Domitius and Didymus are otherwise unknown per-
sonages. Eusebius evidently (as we can see both from this chapter
and from chapter 20) supposes this epistle to refer to the persecution,
particulars of the persecution as follows : " As
our people are many and unknown to you, it
would be superfluous to give their names ; but
understand that men and women, young and
old, maidens and matrons, soldiers and civilians,
of every race and age, some by scourging and
fire, others by the sword, have conquered in
the strife and received their crowns. But 21
in the case of some a very long time was
not sufficient to make them appear acceptable
to the Lord ; as, indeed, it seems also in my
own case, that sufficient time has not yet ela])sed.
Wherefore he has retained me for the time which
he knows to be fitting, saying, ' In an acceptable
time have I heard thee, and in a day of
salvation have I helped thee.' -'^ For as you 22
have inquired of our affairs and desire us to
tell you how we are situated, you have heard
fully that when we — that is, myself and Gains and
Faustus and Peter and PauP — were led away as
prisoners by a centurion and magistrates, with
their soldiers and servants, certain persons from
Mareotis came and dragged us away by force,
as we were unwilling to follow them."^ But 23
now I and Gaius and Peter are alone, de-
prived of the other brethren, and shut up in
a desert and dry place in Libya, three days'
journey from Paraetonium."^^
He says farther on : " The presbyters, 24
Maximus,^" Dioscorus,^^ Demetrius, and Lu-
cius^" concealed themselves in the city, and
visited the brethren secretly ; for Faustinus and
Aquila,^ who are more prominent in the world,
are wandering in Egypt. But the deacons,
Faustus, Eusebius, and Chseremon,^^ have sur-
vived those who died in the pestilence. Euse-
bius is one whom God has strengthened and
endowed from the first to fulfill energetically the
ministrations for the imprisoned confessors, and
to attend to the dangerous task of preparing for
burial the bodies of the perfected and
blessed martyrs. For as I have said be- 25
of which Dionysius has been speaking in that portion of his epistle
to Germanus quoted in this chapter; namely, to the persecution of
Valerian. But he is clearly mistaken in this supposition; for, as we
can see from a comparison of § 22, below, with Bk. VI. chap. 40,
§ 6 sq., Dionysius is referring in this epistle to the same persecution
to which he referred in that chapter; namely, to the persecution of
Decius. But the present epistle was written (as we learn from § 23)
while this same persecution was still going on, and, therefore, some
years before the time of Valerian's persecution, and before the
writing of the epistle to Germanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 2),
with which Eusebius here associates it. Cf. Valesius' note ad lo-
cmn and Dittrich's Diotiystjes der Grosse, p. 40 sq.
2« Isa. xlix. 8.
2' See above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 10.
-* See ibid. § 6 sq.
-" Parsetonium was an important town and harbor on the Medi-
terranean, about 150 miles west of Alexandria. A day's journey
among the ancients commonly denoted about 180 to 200 stadia (22 to
25 miles), so that Dionysius' retreat must have lain some 60 to 70
miles from Paraetonium, probably to the south of it.
20 On Maximus, see above, note 5.
SI Of Dioscorus we know only what is told us here. He is not
to be identified with the lad mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 41, § 19
(see note 17 on that chapter).
3- Of Demetrius and Lucius we know only what is recorded
here.
23 Faustinus and Aquila are known to us only from this passage.
'^ On these three deacons, see above, notes 6-8.
302
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. II.
fore, unto the present time the governor con-
tinues to put to death in a cruel manner those
who are brought to trial. And he destroys
some with tortures, and wastes others away with
imprisonment and bonds ; and he suffers no one
to go near them, and investigates whether any
one does so. Nevertheless God gives relief to
the afflicted through the zeal and persistence of
the brethren."
26 Thus far Dionysius. But it should be
known that Eusebius, whom he calls a dea-
con, shortly afterward became bishop of the
church of Laodicea in Syria ; ^ and Maximus,
of whom he speaks as being then a presby-
ter, succeeded Dionysius himself as bishop of
Alexandria.^ But the Faustus who was with
him, and who at that time was distinguished for
his confession, was preserved until the persecu-
tion in our day,^' when being very old and full
of days, he closed his life by martyrdom, being
beheaded. But such are the things which hap-
pened at that time ^ to Dionysius.
CHAPTER XII.
The Martyrs in Ccesarea in Palestine.
During the above-mentioned persecution under
Valerian, three men in Caesarea in Palestine, be-
ing conspicuous in their confession of Christ, were
adorned with divine martyrdom, becoming food
for wild beasts. One of them was called Priscus,
another Malchus, and the name of the third was
Alexander.^ They say that these men, who lived
in the country, acted at first in a cowardly man-
ner, as if they were careless and thoughtless.
For when the opportunity was given to those
who longed for the prize with heavenly desire,
they treated it lightly, lest they should seize the
crown of martyrdom prematurely. But having
deliberated on the matter, they hastened to Cces-
area, and went before the judge and met the end
we have mentioned. They relate that besides
these, in the same persecution and the same city,
a certain woman endured a similar conflict. But
it is reported that she belonged to the sect of
Marcion.^
^ See below, chap. 32, § 5.
>« See chap. 28, note 8.
"' That is, until the persecution of Diocletian, a.d. 303 sq.
"* That is, according to Eusebius, in the time of Valerian, but
only the events related in the first part of the cliapter took place at
that time; those recorded in the epistle to Domitius and Didynius in
tlie lime of I)ec;ius. See above, note 25.
' ( )f these three men we know only what is told us in this chapter.
2 Marcionitic martyrs are mentioned by Eusebius in I'k. IV.
chap. IS, and in Martyrs 0/ Pat. chap. 10. In //. E. V. 16, it is
stated that the Marcionites as well as the Montanists had many
martyrs, but that the orthodox Christians did not acknowleilge them
as Christians, and would not recognize them even when tliey were
martyred together. Of course they were all alike Christians in the
eyes of the state, and hence all alike subject to persecution.
CHAPTER XHI.
The Peace tinder Gallienus.
Shortly after this Valerian was reduced 1
to slavery b}' the barbarians,^ and his son
having become sole ruler, conducted the gov-
ernment more prudently. He immediately re-
strained the persecution against us by public
proclamations," and directed the bishops to per-
form in freedom their customary duties, in a
rescript ^ which ran as follows :
''The Emperor Caesar Publius Licinius 2
Gallienus, Pius, Felix, Augustus,"* to Diony-
sius, Pinnas, Demetrius,^ and the other bishops.
I have ordered the bounty of my gift to be de-
clared through all the world, that they may
depart from the places of religious worship.*^
And for this purpose you may use this copy of
my rescript, that no one may molest you. And
this which you are now enabled lawfully to do,
has already for a long time been conceded by
me.'^ Therefore Aurelius Cyrenius,^ who is the
chief administrator of affairs,^ will observe this
ordinance which I have given."
1 Valerian was taken captive by Sapor, king of Persia, probably
late in the year 260 (the date is somewhat uncertain) and died in
captivity. His son Gallienus, already associated with him in the
empire, became sole emperor when his father fell into the Persians'
hands.
2 Eusebius has not preserved the text of these edicts (irpoypiifj-
IJ-aTa, which were public proclamations, and thus differed from the
rescripts, which were private instructions), but the rescript to the
bishops which he quotes shows that they did more than simply put
a stop to the persecution, — that they in fact made Christianity a
rcligio licita, and that for the first time. The right of the Chris-
tians as a body (the corpus Christianoriim) to hold property is
recognized in this rescript, and this involves the legal recognition of
that body. Moreover, the rescript is addressed to the " bishops,"
which implies a recognition of the organization of the Church. See
tlie article of Gorres, Die Tolerattzeciicte des Kaisers Gallienus,
in the Jahrb.fiir prot. TheoL, 1877, p. 6o5 sq.
3 ai'Tiypai/jjj: the technical term for an epistle containing private
instructions, in distinction from an edict or public proclamation.
This rescript was addressed to the bishops of the province of Egypt
(including Dionysius of Alexandria). It v/as evidently issued some
time after the publication of the edicts themselves. Its exact date is
uncertain, but it was probably written immediately after the fall of
the usurper Macrianus (i.e. late in 261 or early in 262), during the
time of whose usurpation the benefits of Gallienus' edicts of tolera-
tion could of course not have been felt in Egypt and the Orient.
^ Euo■e^^J5, EvTi';(rj?, ie^acrro?.
'' Of Pinnas and Demetrius we know nothing. The identifica-
tion of Demetrius with the presbyter mentioned in chap. 11, § 24,
might be suggested as possible. There is nothing to prevent such
an identification, nor, on the other hand, is there anything to be
urged in its fivor beyond mere agreement in a name which was not
an uncommon one in Egypt.
" (iTTw? (iTrb tiav Toirioi' tuiv Qpi\<jKiva'ni.iav ano\(opy'](7U)(rL, This
is commonly taken to mean that the ".Christians may come forth
from their religious retreats," which, however, does not seem tn be
the sense of the original. I prefer to read, with Closs, " that the
heathen may depart from the Christians' places of worship," from
those, namely, which they h.ad taken possession of during the perse-
cution.
' The reference is doubtless to the edicts, referred to above,
which he had issued inunediately after his accession, but which liad
not been sooner put in force in Egypt because of the usurper Macri-
anus (see above, note 3).
» So far as I am aware, this man is known to us only from this
passage.
'•' 6 Toi) ^fyiffTou vpayixaTO^ irpO(TTaTevitiv. Heinichen, following
Valesius, identifies this office with the o inl tmv itaOoAou Aeiyuii-
(mentioned in chap. 10, § 5), willi the o tiuI' KafiiWov Ki'tyuiv t'7rap\09
(mentioned in lik. IX. chap. 11, § 4), &c. For the nature of that
office, see chap. 10, note 8. Tlie phrase used in this passage seems
to suggest the identification, and yet I am inclined In think, in.as-
much as the rescript has to do specifically with the Chuuh in
h'.gypt, that Aurelius Cyrenius was not (as Macrianus was under
Valerian) the emperor's general finance minister, in charge of the
vir. 15.]
MARTYRDOM OF MARINUS AT C/ESAREA.
303
3 I have given this in a translation from
the Latin, that it may be more reacHly un-
derstood. Another decree of his is extant ad-
dressed to other bisho]is, permitting them to
take possession again of the so-called ceme-
teries.'"
CHAPTER XIV.
The Bishops that flourished at that Time.
At that time Xystiis ' was still presiding over
the church of Rome, and Demetrianus,- succes-
sor of Fabius,'' over the church of Antioch, and
Firmilianus ■* over that of Ceesarea in Cappado-
cia ; and besides these, Gregory ^ and his brother
Athenodorus," friends of Origen, were presiding
over the churches in Pontus ; and Theoctistus "' of
Csesarea in Palestine having died, Domnus ^ re-
ceived the episcopate there. He held it but a
short time, and Theotecnus,^ our contemporary,
succeeded him. He also was a member of Ori-
gen's school. But in Jerusalem, after the death of
Mazabanes,'" Hymenreus," who has been cele-
brated among us for a great many years, suc-
ceeded to his seat.
affairs of the empire, but simply the supreme finance minister or
administrator of Egypt (cf. Mommsen's Provinces of the Roman
Empire, Scribner's ed., II. p. 268).
'" The use of their cemeteries, both as places of burial and as
meeting-places for rehgious worship, had been denied to the Chris-
tians by Valerian. On the origin of the word Koifi))T>ipia, see chap.
II, note 14.
1 On Xystus II., see chap. 5, note 5.
2 On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.
^ On Fabius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 7.
* On FirmiHanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.
^ Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Cfesarea in Pontus
from about 233-270 (?). Upon Gregory, see Bk. VI. chap. 30,
note I.
•• On Athenodorus, see ibid, note 2.
7 On Theoctistus, see Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27.
8 Of the life and character of Domnus we know nothing. So far
as I am aware he is mentioned only here. His dates are uncertain,
but his predecessor, Theoctistus, was still bishop in the time of
Stephen of Rome (254-257; see above, Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27),
while he himself became bishop before the death of Xystus of Rome,
as we may gather from this chapter, i.e. before August, 258 (see
chap. 5, note 5), so that between these dates his accession must
be placed. Eusebius' words in this passage will hardly admit an
episcopate of more than one or two years; possibly he was bishop
but a few months.
^ The dates of Theotecnus are likewise uncertain. Eusebius in
Bk. VII. chap. 32, says that he was acquainted with Pamphilus
during the episcopate of Agapius (the successor of Theotecnus),
implying that he first made his acquaintance then. It is therefore
likely that Agapius became bishop some years before the persecu-
tion of Diocletian, for otherwise we hardly allow enough time for
the acquaintance of Pamphilus and Eusebius who did so much work
together, and apparently were friends for so long a time. Pamphilus
himself suffered martyrdom in 309 a.d. Theotecnus was quite a
prominent man and was present at the two Antiochian synods men-
tioned in chaps. 27 and 30, which were convened to consider the
heresy of Paul of samosata.
1" On Mazabanes, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 5.
11 According to the Chron. of Eusebius, Hymena;us was bishop
of Jerusalem from 265-298. It is expressly stated in the Chron.
that the dates of the earlier Jerusalem bishops are not known (see
Bk. V. chap. 12, note i) ; but with the dates of the bishops of the
latter part of the third century Eusebius can hardly have been
unacquainted, and that Hymena;us was bishop at any rate as
early as 265 is proved by chaps. 27 and 30 (see the note on Maza-
banes referred to just above). The dates given in the Chron. may
therefore be accepted as at least approximately correct.
CHAl^ER XV.
The Martyrdom of Marinus at Ccesarea.
At this time, when the peace of the 1
churches had been everywhere ' restored,
Marinus in Csesarea in Palestine, who was hon-
ored for his military deeds, and illustrious by
virtue of family and wealth, was beheaded for
his testimony to Christ, .on the following
account. The vine-branch^ is a certain 2
mark of honor among the Romans, and
those who obtain it become, they say, centurions.
A place being vacated, the order of succession
called Marinus to this position. But when he
was about to receive the honor, another person
came before the tribunal and claimed that it
was not legal, according to the ancient laws, for
him to receive the Roman dignity, as he was a
Christian and did not sacrifice to the emperors ;
but that the office belonged rather to him.
Thereupon the judge, whose name was 3
Acha^us,^ being disturbed, first asked what
opinion Marinus held. And when he perceived
that he continually confessed himself a Christian,
he gave him three hours for reflection.
When he came out from the tribunal, Theo- 4
tecnus,'* the bishop there, took him aside
and conversed with him, and taking his hand
led him into the church. And standing with
him within, in the sanctuary, he raised his cloak
a little, and pointed to the sword that hung by
his side ; and at the same time he placed before
him the Scripture of the divine Gospels, and
told him to choose which of the two he wished.
And without hesitation he reached forth his right
hand, and took the divine Scripture. " Hold
fast then," says Theotecnus to him, " hold fast
to God, and strengthened by him mayest thou
obtain what thou hast chosen, and go in
peace." Immediately on his return the 5
herald cried out calling him to the tribunal,
for the appointed time was already completed.
And standing before the tribunal, and manifest-
ing greater zeal for the faith, immediately, as he
was, he was led away and finished his course by
death.
1 The martyrdom of Marinus after the promulgation of Gallienus'
edict of toleration and after peace had been, as Eusebius remarks,
everywhere restored to the churches, has caused historians some
difficulty. It is maintained, however, by Tillemont and others, and
with especial force by Gorres in the Jahrhiicherfiir prot. ThcoL,
1877, p. 620 sq., that the martyrdom of Marinus took place while
the usurper Macrianus, who was exceedingly hostile to the Chris-
tians, was still in power in the East, and at a time, therefore, when
the edicts of Gallienus could have no force there. This of course
explains the difficulty completely. The martyrdom then must ha\e
taken place toward the beginning of Gallienus' reign, for Macrianus
was slain as early as 262. Of the martyr Marinus we know only
what Eusebius tells us here.
- TO K\riij.a. The centurion received as a badge of office a vine-
branch or vine-switch, which was called by the Romans Viiis.
^ Achaeus is an otherwise unknown person. That he was gov-
ernor of Palestine, as Valesius asserts, is apparently a pure assump-
tion, for the term used of him (Si/ca<rT)j?) is quite indefinite.
* On Theotecnus, see above, chap, 14, note 9,
304
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. i6.
CHAPTER XVI.
Story in Regard to Astyrius.
AsTYRius^ also is commemorated on account of
his pious boldness in connection with this affair.
He was a Roman of senatorial rank, and in favor
with the emperors, and well known to all on
account of his noble birth and wealth. Being
present at the martyr's death, he took his body
away on his shoulder, and arraying him in a
splendid and costly garment, prepared him for
the grave in a magnificent manner, and gave
him fitting burial.- The friends of this man
that remain to our day, relate many other facts
concerning him.
CHAPTER XVH.
The Sig7is at Paneas of the Great Might of our
Saviour.
Among these is also the following wonder.
At Csesarea Philippi, which the Phoenicians call
Paneas,' springs are shown at the foot of the
Mountain Panius, out of which the Jordan flows.
They say that on a certain feast day, a victim
was thrown in,^ and that through the power of
the demon it marvelously disappeared and that
which happened was a famous wonder to those
who were present. Astyrius was once there
when these things were done, and seeing the
multitude astonished at the affair, he pitied their
delusion ; and looking up to heaven he suppli-
cated the God over all through Christ, that he
would rebuke the demon who deceived the peo-
ple, and bring the men's delusion to an end.
And they say that when he had prayed thus,
immediately the sacrifice floated on the surface
of the fountain. And thus the miracle de-
parted ; and no wonder was ever afterward per-
formed at the place.
* We know nothing more about this Astyrius than is recorded
here. Rufinus, in his H. E. VII. 13, tells us that he suffered mar-
tyrdom at about this time; but Eusebius says nothing of the kind,
and it is therefore not at all probable that Rufinus is correct. He
yjrobably concluded, from Eusebius' account of him, that he also
suffered martyrdom.
''■ Burton and Crus6 close the chapter at this point, throwing the
next sentence into chap. 17. Such a transposition, however, is
unnecessary, and I have preferred to follow Valesius, Heinichcn,
Schwe^ler, and other editors, in dividing as above.
' Caesarea Philippi (to be distinguished from Cxsarea, the chief
city of Palestine, mentioned in previous chapters) was originally
called Paneas by the Greeks, — a name which it retained even after
the name Ca;sarea Philippi had been given it by Philip the Tetrarch,
who enlarged and beautified it. The place, which is now a small
village, is called Banias by the Arabs. It lies at the base of Mt.
Hermon, and is noted for one of the principal sources of the Jordan,
which issues from springs beneath the rocks of Mt. Hermon at this
point. The spot is said to be remarkably beautiful. See Robin-
son's Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. III. p. 409 sq.
- Valesius remarks that the heathen were accustomed to throw
victims into their sacred wells and fountains, and that therefore
Publicola asks Augustine, in Epistle 153, whether one ouyht to
drink from a fountain or well whither a portion of sacrifice had been
sent.
CHAPTER XVni.
The Statue which the Wonan with an Issue
of Blood erected}
Since I have mentioned this city I do 1
not think it proper to omit an account
which is worthy of record for posterity. For
they say that the woman with an issue of blood,
who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel," re-
ceived from our Saviour deliverance from her
affliction, came from this place, and that her
house is shown in the city, and that remarkable
memorials of the kindness of the Saviour
to her remain there. For there stands upon 2
an elevated stone, by the gates of her
house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with
her hands stretched out, as if she were pray-
ing. Opposite this is another upright image of
a man, made of the same material, clothed
decently in a double cloak, and extending his
hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside
the statue itself,^ is a certain strange plant,
which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak,
and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.
They say that this statue is an image of 3
Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that
we ourselves also saw it when we were stay-
ing in the city. Nor is it strange that those 4
of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited
by our Saviour, should have done such things,
since we have learned also that the likenesses of
his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ him-
self, are preserved in paintings,^ the ancients
being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a
habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor
indiscriminately to those regarded by them as
deliverers.
1 This account of the statue erected by the wom.an with the issue
of blood is repeated by many later writers, and Sozomen (//. E.
V. 2i) and Philostorgius (//. E. VII. 3) inform us that it was
destroyed by the Emperor Julian. Gieseler remarks (Ecchs. Hist.,
Harper's ed. I. p. 70), "Judging by the analogy of many coins,
the memorial had been erected in honor of an emperor (probably
Hadrian), and falsely interpreted by the Christians, perhaps on
account of a (rwr^pi or Otw appearing in the inscription." There
can be no doubt of Eusebius' honesty in the matter, but no less
doubt that the statue commemorated something quite different from
that which Christian tradition claimed. Upon this whole chapter,
see Heinichen's Excursus, in Vol. III. p. 698 sq.
2 See Matt. ix. zo sq.
3 o5 jrapii TOK itoa'iv ctti t^5 cTijA))? ovT^?. This is commonly
translated "at his feet, u/>oh the pedestal"; but, as Heinichcn
remarks, in the excursus referred to just above, the plant can hai<lly
have grown upon the pedestal, and what is more, we have no war-
rant for translating crrijAr) " pedestal." Paulus, in his commentary
on Matthew in loco, maintains that Eusebius is speaking only of a
representation upon the ba.se of the statue, not of an actual plant.
But this interpretation, as Heinichcn shows, is quite unwarranted.
For the use of tirl in the sense of " near" or " beside," we have
numerous examples (see the instances given by Heinichcn, and also
Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, j.7'.).
* Eusebius himself, as we learn from his letter to the Empress
Constantia Augusta (see above, p. 44), did not approve of the use
of images or representations of Christ, on the ground that it tended
to idolatry. In consecpience of this disapproval he fell into great
disrepute in the later image-worshiping Church, his epistle being
I itcd by the iconoclasts at the seconil Council of Nica;a, in 787, and
his orthodoxy being in consequence fiercely attacked by the defend-
ers of image-worship, who dominated the council, and won the day.
VII. 21.]
FESTAL EPISTLES OF DIONYSIUS.
305
CHAPTER XLX.
The EpiscQpal Chair of James.
The chair of James, who first received the
ejiiscopate of the church at Jerusalem from the
Saviour himself^ and the apostles, and who, as
the divine records show,- was called a brother
of Christ, has been preserved until now,^ the
brethren who have followed him in succession
there exhibiting clearly to all the reverence
which both those of old times and those of our
own day maintained and do maintain for holy
men on account of their piety. So much as to
this matter.
CHAPTER XX.
The Festal Epistles of Dionysiiis, in 7uhich he
also gives a Paschal Cation.
DiON\'Sius, besides his epistles already men-
tioned,' wrote at that time- also his extant
Festal Epistles,^ in which he uses words of
panegyric respecting the passover feast. He
addressed one of these to Flavius,^ and another
1 That James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Christ
himself was an old and wide-spread tradition. Compare, e.g., the
Clementine Rt'cognitwns , Bk. I. chap. 43, the Apostolic Constitu-
tions, Bk. VIII. chap. 35, and Chrysostom's Homily XXXVIII.
oil First Corinthians. See Valesjus' note ad locum ; and on the
universal tradition that James was bishop of Jerusalem, see above,
Bk. II. chap. I, note 11.
- See Gal. i. 19. On the actual relationship of " James, the
Brother of the Lord " to Christ, see Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.
3 There can be no doubt that a chair {6p6vo<;) , said to be the
episcopal seat of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was shown in
that church in the time of Eusebius, but there can be no less doubt
that it was not genuine. Even had James been bishop of Jerusalem,
and possessed a regular episcopal chair, or throne (a very violent
supposition, which involves a most glaring anachronism), it was
quite out of the question that it should have been preserved from
destruction at the fall of the city in 70 a.d. As Stroth drily re-
marlcs: "Man hatte auch wohl nichts wichtigeres zu retten, als
eiuen Stuhl! " The beginning of that veneration of relics which
later took such strong hold on the Church, and which still flourishes
within the Greek and Roman communions is clearly seen in this
case recorded by Eusebius. At the same time, we can hardly say
that that superstitious veneration with which we are acquainted
appeared in this case. There seems to be nothing more than the
customary respect for an article of old and time-honored associations
which is seen everywhere and in all ages (cf. Heinichen's Excur-
sus on this passage, Vol. III. p. 208 sq.). Cruse has unaccountably
rendered 9poi'o? in this passage as if it referred to the see of Jerusa-
lem, not to the chair of the bishop. It is plain enough that such an
interpretation is quite unwarranted.
1 Upon Dionysius of Alexandria, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note i,
and see that note for references to the various passages in which
Eusebius mentions or quotes from his epistles.
- Eusebius supposes all of these epistles to have been written in
the time of Valerian or Gallienus: but he is mistaken, at least so far
as the epistle to Domitius and Didymus is concerned (see above,
chap. II, note 25), and possibly in regard to some of the others
also.
3 TO? </)epo/oieVas eopTatrriKa?. It was the custom for the bishops
of Ale.vandria to write every year before Easter a sort of epistle, or
homily, and in it to announce the time of the festival. These writings
thus received the name Festal or Festival Epistles or Homilies (see
Suicer's Thesaurus s.v. kofnaxniKo^, and Valesius' note ad locuin').
This is apparently the earliest mention of such epistles. Others are
referred to by Eusebius in chaps. 21 and 22, as written by Dionysius
to various persons. Undoubtedly all the Alexandrian bishops dur-
ing these centuries wrote such epistles, but none are extant, so far
as I am aware, except a number by Athanasius (extant only in a
Syriac versicm, published in Syriac and English by Cureton in 1846
and 18481, a few by Theophilus (extant only in Latin), and thirty
by Cyril (published in Migne's Patr. Gr . I. XXVII. 391 sq.).
* Of this Flavins we know nothing. The epistle addressed to
him is no longer extant.
VOL. I.
to Domitius and Didymus,^ in which he sets
forth a canon of eight years," maintaining that it
is not ]-)roper to observe the paschal feast until
after the vernal equinox. Besides these he sent
another epistle to his fellow-presbyters in Alex-
andria, as well as various others to different per-
sons while the persecution was still prevailing.^
CHAPTER XXL
The Occurrences at Alexatidria.
Peace had but just been restored when 1
he returned to Alexandria ; ' but as sedition
and war broke out again, rendering it impossible
for him to oversee all the brethren, separated
in different places by the insurrection, at the
feast of the passover, as if he were still an exile
from Alexandria, he addressed them again
by letter.- And in another festal epistle 2
written later to Hierax,^ a bishop in Egypt,
he mentions the sedition then prevailing in Alex-
andria, as follows :
" What wonder is it that it is difficult for me
to communicate by letters with those who live
far away, when it is beyond my power even to
reason with myself, or to take counsel for
my own life ? Truly I need to send letters 3
to those who are as my own bowels,^ dwell-
ing in one home, and brethren of one soul, and
citizens of the same church ; but how to send
them I cannot tell. For it would be easier
for one to go, not only beyond the limits of
the province, but even from the East to the
West, than from Alexandria to Alexandria itself.
5 On Domitius and Didymus, and the epistle addressed to them,
see above, chap, ii, note 25. Eusebius quotes from the epistle in
that chapter.
" That is, an eight-year cycle for the purpose of determining the
time of the full moon. Hippolytus had employed the old eight-year
cycle, but had, as he thought, improved it by combining two in a
single sixteen-year cycle (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 22), as was
done also by the author of the so-called Cyprianic Chronicle at the
middle of the third century. The more accurate nineteen-year Me-
tonic cycle (already in use among the Greeks in the fifth century B.C.)
had not come into general use in the Church until later than this
time. The Nicene Council sanctioned it and gave it wide currency,
but it had apparently not yet come into use in the Church. In fact,
the first Christian to make use of it for the computation of Easter,
so far as we know, was Anatolius of Alexandria, later bishop of
Laodicea (see below, chap. 32, § 14). It was soon adopted in the
Alexandrian church, and already in the time of Athanasius had
become the basis of all Easter calculations, as we can gather from
Athanasius' Festal Epistles. From about the time of the Nicene
Council on, Alexandria was commonly looked to for the reckoning
of the date of Easter, and .although an older and less accurate cycle
remained in use in the West for a long time, the nineteen-year cycle
gradually won its way everywhere. See Ideler's great work on
chronology, .and cf. Hefele's Conciliengesch. 2d ed. I. p. 332, and
Lightfoot in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. II. p. 313 sq.
' These various epistles are no longer extant, nor do we know
the names of the persons to whom they were addressed. At least a
part of them, if not all, were very likely written during the Valerian
persecution, as Eusebius states, for the fact that he made a mistake
in connection with the epistle to Domitius and Didymus does not
prove that he was in error in regard to all the others as well.
1 This was after the fall of the usurper Macrianus, probably late
in the year 261 or early in 262 (see above, chap. 13, note 3).
2 This epistle written by Dionysius during the civil war to his
scattered flock is no longer extant.
3 Of this Hierax we know no more than is told us here.
* cf. Philemon, vers. 12.
506
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. 21.
4 For the very heart of the city is more intri-
cate and impassable than that great and
trackless desert which Israel traversed for two
generations. And our smooth and waveless
harbors have become like the sea, divided and
walled up, through which Israel drove and in
whose highway the Egyptians were overwhelmed.
For often from the slaughters there commit-
5 ted they appear like the Red Sea. And
the river which flows by the city has some-
times seemed drier than the waterless desert,
and more parched than that in which Israel, as
they passed through it, so suffered for thirst,
that they cried out against Moses, and the water
flowed for them from the steep rock,*
6 through him who alone doeth wonders. Again
it has overflowed so greatly as to flood all
the surrounding country, and the roads and the
fields ; threatening to bring back the deluge of
water that occurred in the days of Noah. And
it flows along, polluted always with blood and
slaughter and drownings, as it became for Pha-
raoh through the agency of Moses, when he
7 changed it into blood, and it stank.^ And
what other water could purify the water
which purifies everything? How could the
ocean, so great and impassable for men, if poured
into it, cleanse this bitter sea ? Or how could
the great river which flowed out of Eden, if it
poured the four heads into which it is divided
into the one of Geon,^ wash away this pollu-
8 tion? Or when can the air poisoned by
these noxious exhalations become pure?
For such vapors arise from the earth, and winds
from the sea, and breezes from the river, and
mists from the harbors, that the dews are, as it
were, discharges from dead bodies putrefy-
9 ing in all the elements around us. Yet men
wonder and cannot understand whence these
continuous pestilences ; whence these severe
sicknesses ; whence these deadly diseases of all
kinds ; whence this various and vast human
destruction ; why this great city no longer con-
tains as many inhabitants, from tender infants
to those most advanced in life, as it formerly
contained of those whom it called hearty old
men. But the men from forty to seventy years
of age were then so much more numerous that
their number cannot now be filled out, even
when those from fourteen to eighty years are
enrolled and registered for the public allow-
10 ance of food. And the youngest in appear-
ance have become, as it were, of equal age
with those who formerly were the oldest. But
though they see the race of men thus constantly
s (k /rcTpa? cLKpoTonov. The adjective is an addition of Diony-
sius' own. The LXX of Ex. xvii. 6 has only nirpa, " rock."
" cTTO^fffa?; the same word which is used in tlie LXX of Ex.
vii. 21.
' rijuK; LXX(Gen. ii. i3),r<!iv; Hcb. Jln"'a; A.V.andR.V.,
Gihon,
diminishing and wasting away, and though their
complete destruction is increasing and advanc-
ing, they do not tremble."
CHAPTER XXII.
T/ie Pestilence which came upon them.
After these events a pestilential disease 1
followed the war, and at the approach of
the feast he wrote again to the brethren, de-
scribing the sufferings consec^uent upon this
calamity.^
" To other men - the present might not 2
seem to be a suitable time for a festival.
Nor indeed is this or any other time suitable for
them ; neither sorrowful times, nor even such as
might be thought especially cheerful.^ Now,
indeed, everything is tears and every one is
mourning, and wailings resound daily through
the city because of the multitude of the
dead and dying. For as it was written of 3
the firstborn of the Egyptians, so now ' there
has arisen a great cry, for there is not a house
where there is not one dead.' ■* And would
that this were all ! ^ For many terrible things 4
have happened already. First, they drove
us out ; and when alone, and persecuted, and
put to death by all, even then we kept the feast.
And every place of affliction was to us a place
of festival : field, desert, ship, inn, prison ; but
the perfected martyrs kept the most joyous
festival of all, feasting in heaven. After these 5
things war and famine followed, which we
endured in common with the heathen. But we
bore alone those things with which they afflicted
us, and at the same time we experienced also
the eff'ects of what they inflicted upon and suf-
fered from one another ; and again, Ave rejoiced
in the peace of Christ, which he gave to us
alone.
" But after both we and they had enjoyed 6
a very brief season of rest this pestilence
assailed us ; to them more dreadful than any
dread, and more intolerable than any other
calamity ; and, as one of their own writers has
said, the only thing which prevails over all hope.
1 This letter seems to have been written shortly before Easter of
the year 263; for the festal epistle to Hierax, quoted in the last
chapter, was written while the war was still in progress (i.e. in 262),
this one after its close. It does not seem to have been a regular
festal epistle so-called, for in § 11, below, we are told that iJionysius
wrote a reijniar festal letter (fOpTa<7TiKJ)>' ypa.^>r\v) to the brethren
in E.yypt, and that apparently in connection with this same Easter
of the year 263.
''■ i.e. to the heathen.
^ i.e. there is no time when heathen can fitly rejoice.
* Ex. xii. 30.
^ (cat MtiKov ye, with the majority of the MSS., followed by
Valesius, Schwesjler, and Heinichen. Stroth, I'nrton, and Zimmer-
mann, upon the antliority of two MSS., read vai o./ifAiif yt m
(" and would that there were but one! "), a rcadinj; wliii h Valesius
approves in his notes. The weight of MS. autliurlly, however, is
with the former, and it alone justifies the -yap of the following
sentence.
VII. 23.]
BROTHERLY KINDNESS OE CHRISTIANS.
307
But to us this was not so, but no less than the
other things was it an exercise and proba-
tion. For it did not keep aloof even from us,
but the heatlien it assailed more severely."
7 Farther on he adds :
" The most of our brethren were unspar-
ing in their exceeding love and brotherly kind-
ness. They held fast to each other and visited
the sick fearlessly, and ministered to them con-
tinually, ser\'ing them in Christ. And they died
with them most joyfully, taking the affliction of
others, and drawing the sickness from their
neighbors to themselves and willingly receiving
their pains. And many who cared for the sick
and gave strength to others died themselves,
havincr transferred to themselves their death.
And the popular saying which always seems a
mere expression of courtesy, they then made
real in action, taking their departure as the
others' ' offscouring.' "
8 " Truly the best of our brethren departed
from life in this manner, including some
presbyters and deacons and those of the people
who had the highest reputation ; so that this
form of death, through the great piety and
strong faith it exhibited, seemed to lack
9 nothing of martyrdom. And they took the
bodies of the saints in their open hands
and in their bosoms, and closed their eyes and
their mouths ; and they bore them away on
their shoulders and laid them out ; and they
clung to them and embraced them ; and they
prepared them suitably with washings and gar-
ments. And after a little they received like
treatment themselves, for the survivors were
continually following those who had gone before
them.
10 " But with the heathen everything was quite
otherwise. They deserted those who began
to be sick, and fled from their dearest friends.
And they cast them out into the streets when
they were half dead, and left the dead like refuse,
unburied. They shunned any participation or
fellowship with death ; which yet, with all
their precautions, it was not easy for them to
escape."
11 After this epistle, when peace had been
restored to the city, he wrote another fes-
tal letter^ to the brethren in Egypt, and again
several others besides this. And there is also
•! 7r6pii|/r)|u.a ; cf. i Cor. iv. 13. Valesius suggests that this may
have been a humble and complimentary form of salutation among
the Alexandrians: eyio eiiA ncpixprnxd aov (cf. our words, "Your
humble .servant ") ; or, as he thinks more probable, that the e.\-
pression had come to be habitually applied to the Christians by the
heathen. The former interpretation .seems to me the only possible
one in view of the words immediately preceding: "which always
seems a mere expression of courtesy." Certainly these words rule
out the second interpretation suggested by Valesius.
' The connection into which this festal epistle is brought with
the letter just quoted would seem to indicate that it was written not
a whole year, but very soon after that one. We may, therefore,
look upon it as Dionysiiis' festal epistle of the year 263 (see above,
nolo i). Neuher this nor the "several others" spoken of just
below is now extant.
a certain one extant On the Sabbath,^ and
another On Exercise. Moreover, he wrote 12
again an epistle to Hermammon '■* and the
brethren in Egypt, describing at length the
wickedness of Decius and his successors, and
mentioning the peace under Gallienus,
CHAPTER XXIII.
T/ie Reign of Gallienus.
But there is nothing like hearing his own 1
words, which are as follows :
"Then he,^ having betrayed one of the em-
perors that preceded him, and made war on the
other,- perished with his whole family speedily
and utterly. But Gallienus was proclaimed and
universally acknowledged at once an old em-
peror and a new, being before them and
continuing after them. For according to 2
the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah,
' Behold the things from the beginning have
come to pass, and new things shall now arise.' ^
For as a cloud passing over the sun's rays and
obscuring them for a little time hides it and
appears in its place ; but when the cloud has
passed by or is dissipated, the sun which had
risen before appears again ; so Macrianus who
put himself forward and approached the existing
empire of Gallienus, is not, since he never
was. But the other is just as he was. And 3
his kingdom, as if it had cast aside old age,
and had been purified from the former wicked-
ness, now blossoms out more vigorously, and is
seen and heard farther, and extends in all direc-
tions."'*
He then indicates the time at which he 4
wrote this in the following words :
" It occurs to me again to review the days of
the imperial years. For I perceive that those
most impious men, though they have been fa-
mous, yet in a short time have become nameless.
But the holier and more godly prince,^ having
8 This and the next epistle are no longer extant, and we know
neither the time of their composition nor the persons to whom they
were addressed.
'■> On Hermammon and the epistle addressed to him, see above,
chap. I, note 3. An extract from this same epistle is given in that
chapter and also in chap. 10.
' i.e. Macrianus; see above, chap. 10, note 5.
- He is supposed to have betrayed Valerian into the hands of the
Persians, or at least, by his treachery, to have brought about the
result which took i)lace, and after Valerian's capture he made war
upon Gallienus, the latter's son and successor. See the note re-
ferred to just above.
^ Isa. xlii. 9.
■• Dionysius is evidently somewhat dazzled and blinded by the
favor shown by Gallienus to the Christians. For we know from the
profane historians of this period that the reign of Gallienus was one
of the darkest in all the history of the Roman Empire, on account
of the numerous disasters which came upon the empire, and the in-
ternal disturbances and calamities it was called upon to endure.
•'' Gallienus is known to us as one of the most abandoned and
profligate of emperors, though he was not without ability and cour-
age which he displayed occasionally. Dionysius' words at this
point are not surprising, for the public benefits conferred by Gallie-
nus upon the Christians would far outweigh his private vices in
X 2
3o8
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. 23.
passed the seventh year, is now completing the
ninth/ in which we shall keep the feast."
CHAPTER XXIV.
Nepos and his Schisin}
1 Besides all these the two books on the
Promises ^ were prepared by him. The oc-
the minds of those who had suffered from the persecutions of his
predecessors.
•' The peculiar form of reckoning employed here (the mention of
the seventh and then the ninth year) has caused considerable perplex-
ity. Stroth thinks that " Dionysius speaks here of the lime when
Gallienus actually ruled in Egypt. For Macrianus had ruled there for
a year, and during that time the authority of Gallienus in that country
had been interrupted." The view of Pearson, however, seems to
me better. He remarks: " Whoever expressed himself thus, that
one after his seven years was passing his ninth year? This septeti-
niiim (eTTTaeTTjpii;) must designate something peculiar and different
from the time following. It is therefore the septennium of imperial
power which he had held along with his father. In the eighth year
of that empire [the father, Valerian, being in captivity in Persia],
Macrianus possessed himself of the imperial honor especially m
Egypt. After his assumption of the purple, however, Gallienus had
still much authority in Egypt. At length in the ninth year of fJal-
lienus, i.e. in 261, Macrianus, the father and the two sons being
slain, the sovereignty of Gallienus was recognized also among the
Egyptians." " The ninth year of Gallienus, moreover, began about
midsummer of this year; and the time at which this letter was
written by Dionysius, as Eusebius observes, may be gathered from
that, and falls consequently before the Paschal season of 262 a.d."
See also chap, i, note 3, above.
1 Of this Egyptian bishop, Nepos, we know only what is told us
in this chapter. Upon chiliasm in the early Church, see above,
Bk. III. chap. 39, note 19. It is interesting to note, that although
chiliasm had long lost its hold wherever the philosophical theology
of the third century had made itself felt, it still continued to maintain
its sway in other parts of the Church, especially in outlying districts
in the East, which were largely isolated from the great centers of
thought, and in the greater part of the West. By such Christians it
was looked upon, in fact, as the very kernel of Christianity, — they
lived as most Christians of the second century had, in the constant
hope of a speedy return of Christ to reign in power upon the earth.
The gradual exclusion of this remnant of early Christian belief in-
volved the same kind of consequences as the disappearance of the
belief in the continued possession by the Church of the spirit fif
prophecy (see Bk. V. chap. 16, note i), and marks another step in
the progress of the Church from the peculiarly enthusiastic spirit of
the first and second, to the more formal spirit of the third and fol-
lowing centuries. Compare the remarks of Harnack in his Degiiii-ii-
geschichtey I. p. 482 sq. It seems, from § 6, below, that Dionysius
had engaged in an oral discussion of the doctrines taught in the book
of Nepos, which had prevailed for a long time in Arsinoe, where the
disputation was held. The best spirit was exhibited by both parties
in the discussion, and the result was a decided victory for Dionysius.
He was evidently afraid, however, that the book of Nepos, which
was widely circulated, would still continue to do damage, and there-
fore he undertook to refute it in a work of his own, entitled On the
Promises (see the next note). His work, like his disputation,
undoubtedly had considerable effect, but chiliasm still prevailed in
some of the outlying districts of Egypt for a number of generations.
2 Trepi eTrayyeAiwi'. This work, as we learn from § 3, below,
contained in the first book Dionysius' own views on the subject
under dispute, in the second a detailed discussion of the Apocalypse
upon which Nepos based his chiliastic opinions. The work is no
longer extant, though Eusebius gives extracts from the second book
in this and in the next chapter; and three brief fragments have been
preserved in a Vatican MS., and are published in the various editions
of Dionysius' works. The Eusebian extracts are translated in the
Ante-Nicette Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 81-84. We have no means of
ascertaining the date of Dionysius' work. Hefelc {Concilien^esch.
1. p. 134), Dittrich (p. 69), and others, put the disputation at
Arsinoe, in 254 or 255, and the composition of the work of Dionysius
of course soon thereafter; but we have no authority for fixing the
date of the disputation with such exactness, and must be content to
leave it quite undetermined, though it is not improb.able that it took
place, as Dittrich maintains, between the persecutions of Decius
and Valerian. In the preface to the eighteenth book of his commen-
tary on Isaiah, Jerome speaks of a work of Dionysius, On the
Promises (evidently referring to this same work), directed against
Irenaeus. In his de vir. ill. 69, however, he follows Eusebius in
stating that the work was written against Nepos. There can be
no doubt on this score, and Jerome's statement in his commentary
seems to be a direct error. It is possible, however, that Iren.eus,
as the most illustrious representative of chiliastic views, may have
been mentioned, and his positions refuted in the work, and thus
Jerome have had some justification for his report.
casion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt,
who taught that the promises to the holy men
in the Divine Scriptures should be understood
in a more Jewish manner, and that there would
be a certain millennium of bodily luxury
upon this earth. As he thought that he 2
could establish his private opinion by the
Revelation of John, he wrote a book on this
subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists.^
Dionysius opposes this in his books on the 3
Promises. In the first he gives his own
opinion of the dogma ; and in the second he
treats of the Revelation of John, and mention-
ing Nepos at the beginning, writes of him in this
manner :
" But since they bring forward a certain 4
work of Nepos, on which they rely confi-
dently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there
will be a reign of Christ upon earth, I confess
that * in many other respects I approve and love
Nepos, for his faith and industry and diligence
in the Scriptures, and for his extensive psalmody,*
with which many of the brethren are still de-
lighted ; and I hold him in the more reverence
because he has gone to rest before us. But the
truth should be loved and honored most of all.
And while we should praise and approve un-
grudgingly what is said aright, we ought to
examine and correct what does not seem to
have been written soundly. Were he pres- 5
ent to state his opinion orally, mere unwrit-
ten discussion, persuading and reconciling those
who are opposed by question and answer, would
be sufficient. But as some think his work very
plausible, and as certain teachers regard the law
and prophets as of no consequence, and do not
follow the Gospels, and treat lightly the apos-
tolic epistles, while they make promises ^ as to
the teaching of this work as if it were some
great hidden mystery, and do not permit our
simpler brethren to have any sublime and lofty
thoughts concerning the glorious and truly divine
appearing of our Lord, and our resurrection
from the dead, and our being gathered together
unto him, and made like him, but on the con-
trary lead them to hope for small and mortal
things in the kingdom of God, and for things
such as exist now, — since this is the case, it is
necessary that we should dispute with our brother
3 Evidently directed against Origen and other allegorical inter-
preters like him, who avoided the materialistic conceptions deduced
by so many from the Apocalypse, by spiritualizing and allegorizing
its language. 'I'his work of Nepos has entirely perished.
* 'Ihe words " I confess that" are not in the original, but the
insertion of some clause of the kind is necessary to complete the
sentence.
^ Gn early Christian hymnody, see above, Bk. V. chap. 28,
note 14.
" " i.e. dire aiitc promittunt quam tradutit. The metaphor is
taken from the mysteries of the Greeks, who were wont to promise
great and marvelous discoveries to the initiated, and then kept
them on the rack by daily expectation in order to confirm their
judgment and reverence by suspense of knowledge, as Tertullian
says in his book Against the yalentinians [chap, ij." Valesius.
VII. 25.]
DIONYSIUS ON Till-: APOCALYPSE.
309
Nepos as if he were present." Farther on he
says :
6 " ^\^len I was in the district of Arsinoe,"
where, as you know, this doctrine has pre-
vailed for a long time, so that schisms and apos-
tasies of entire churches have resulted, I called
together the presbyters and teachers of the
brethren in the villages, — such brethren as
wished being also present, — and I exhorted
them to make a public examination of this
7 question. Accordingly when they brought
me this book, as if it were a weapon and
fortress impregnable, sitting with them from
morning till evening for three successive days, I
endeavored to correct what was written in
8 it. And I rejoiced over the constancy,
sincerity, docility, and intelligence of the
brethren, as we considered in order and with
moderation the questions and the difficulties
and the points of agreement. And we abstained
from defending in every manner and conten-
tiously the opinions which we had once held,
unless they appeared to be correct. Nor did
we evade objections, but we endeavored as far
as possible to hold to and confirm the things
which lay before us, and if the reason given
satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our
opinions and agree with others ; but on the con-
trary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with
hearts laid open before God, we accepted what-
ever was established by the proofs and
9 teachings of the Holy Scriptures. And
finally the author and mover of this teach-
ing, who was called Coracion,^ in the hearing of
all the brethren that were present, acknowledged
and testified to us that he would no longer hold
this opinion, nor discuss it, nor mention nor
teach it, as he was fully convinced by the argu-
ments against it. And some of the other brethren
expressed their gratification at the conference,
and at the spirit of conciliation and harmony
which all had manifested."
CHAPTER XXV.
The Apocalypse of John}
1 Afterward he speaks in this manner of
the Apocalypse of John,
" Some before us have set aside and rejected
the book altogether, criticising it chapter by
chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or
argument, and maintaining that the title is
2 fraudulent. For they say that it is not the
^ iv Tw 'ApiTii'oet'Tr). The Arsinoite nome or district (on the
nomes of Egypt, see above, Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10) was situated
on the western bank of the Nile, between the river and Lake Mosris,
southwest of Memphis.
' Of this Coracion, we know only what is told us here.
1 Upon the Apocalypse in the early Church, and especially upon
Dionysius' treatment of it, see above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.
work of John, nor is it a revelation, because
it is covered thickly and densely by a vail of
obscurity. And they affirm that none of the
apostles, rrnd none of the saints, nor any one in
the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who
founded the sect which was called after him the
Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for
his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doc- 3
trine which he taught was this : that the
kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And
as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of
the body and altogether sensual in his nature,
he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in
those things which he desired, namely, in the
delights of the belly and of sexual passion ; that
is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying,
and in festivals and sacrifices and the slay-
ing of victims, under the guise of which he
thought he could indulge his appetites with a
better grace.^
" But I could not venture to reject the 4
book, as many brethren hold it in high es-
teem. But I suppose that it is beyond my com-
prehension, and that there is a certain con-
cealed and more wonderful meaning in every
part. For if I do not understand I suspect
that a deeper sense lies beneath the words.
I do not measure and judge them by my 5
own reason, but leaving the more to faith I
regard them as too high for me to grasp. And
I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but
rather wonder because I do not understand it."
After this he examines the entire Book 6
of Revelation, and having proved that it is
impossible to understand it according to the
literal sense, proceeds as follows :
" Having finished all the prophecy, so to
speak, the prophet pronounces those blessed
who shall observe it, and also himself. For he
says, ' Blessed is he that keepeth the words of
the prophecy of this book, and I, John,
who saw and heard these things.' ^ There- 7
fore that he was called John, and that this
book is the work of one John, I do not deny.
And I agree also that it is the work of a holy
and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit
that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the
brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John
and the Catholic Epistle * were written.
For I judge from the character of both, 8
and the forms of expression, and the entire
execution of the book,^ that it is not his. For
' A portion of this extract (§§ 2 and 3) has been already quoted
by Eusebius in I'k. III. chap. 28.
■' Rev. xxii. 7,8. Dionysius punctuates this passage peculiarlv,
and thus interprets it quite difierently from all our versions of the
I5ook of Revelation. The Greek text as given by him agrees with
our received text of the Apocalypse; but the words Kafw 'Iwricrrj?
6 riKoviov Kai (SAt-TTioi' TavTa, which Dionysius connects wUh the
preceding, should form an independent sentence: " And I, Jchn,
am he that heard and saw these things."
■• On the Gospel and Epistle, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes i and t8.
'• T^s ToO ^l3AlOu 6ce|T/u)7))? Ae70/u.€i'r)5. Valesius considers
Sie^ayiayiq equivalent to dispositionem or oixoi'om'ar, "for 6i<f-
3IO
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. 25.
the evangelist nowhere gives liis name, or pro-
claims himself, either in the Gospel or
9 Epistle." Farther on he adds :
" But John never speaks as if referring to
himself, or as if referring to another person."
But the author of the Apocalypse introduces
himself at the very beginning : ' The Revelation
of Jesus Christ, which he gave him to show unto
his ser\^ants quickly ; and he sent and signified
it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare
witness of the word of God and of his testi-
mony, even of all things that he saw."^
10 Then he writes also an epistle : ' John to
the seven churches which are in Asia, grace
be with you, and peace.' ^ But the evangelist
did not prefix his name even to the Catholic
Epistle ; but without introduction he begins with
the mystery of the divine revelation itself:
* That which was from the beginning, which we
have heard, which we have seen with our
eyes.' " For because of such a revelation the
Lord also blessed Peter, saying, ' Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath
not revealed it unto thee, but my heavenly
11 Father.' '" But neither in the reputed sec-
ond or third epistle of John, though they
are very short, does the name John appear ; but
there is written the anonymous phrase, ' the
elder.' '^ But this author did not consider it
sufficient to give his name once and to proceed
with his work ; but he takes it up again : * I,
John, who also am your brother and companion
in tribulation, and in the kingdom and in the
patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is
called Patmos for the Word of God and the tes-
timony of Jesus.' ^' And toward the close he
speaks thus : * Blessed is he that keepeth the
words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John,
who saw and heard these things.' ^^
12 " But that he who wrote these things was
called John must be believed, as he says it ;
but who he was does not appear. P'or he did
not say, as often in the Gospel, that he was the
beloved disciple of the Lord,^'* or the one who
lay on his breast," or the brother of James, or
the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord.
13 For he would have spoken of these things
aywyf '»■ is the same as Sioi/cciu, as Suidas says." He translates <r.v
Ubelliiotins diictu ac dispositione, remarking that tlic words may
be interpreted also as /crmaiii et rationem scribe luii, sen cha-
ractcrein. The phrase evidently means the " general disposition "
or " form" of the work. Closs translates " aus ihrer ganzen Aus-
fiihrung"; Salmond, " the whole disposition and e.vecution of the
book"; Cruse, " the execution of the whole book."
"i.e. never speaks of himself in the first person, as " I, John";
nor in the third person, as e.g. " his servant, John."
' Rev. i. I, 2. '0 Matt. xvi. 17.
« Rev. i. 4. " See z John, ver. i, and 3
" 1 John i. I. John, ver. i.
" Rev. i. 9.
'' Rev. xxii. 7, 8. See above, note 3.
'♦ .See John .\iii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20.
"i See John xiii. 23, 25. These words, ou5e jav o-voMtaav-ra in\
r'l <TTr]9o<; ovtoO, are wanting in Heinichen's edition; but as they
are found in all the other editions and versions, and Heinichen gives
no reason for their omission, it is clear that they liave been omitted
inad"crtently,
if he had wished to show himself plainly. But
he says none of them ; but speaks of him-
self as our brother and companion, and a wit-
ness of Jesus, and blessed because he had
seen and heard the revelations. But I am 14
of the opinion that there were many with
the same name as the apostle John, who, on
account of their love for him, and because they
admired and emulated him, and desired to be
loved by the Lord as he was, took to themselves
the same surname, as many of the children
of the faithful are called Paul or Peter. For 15
example, there is also another John, sur-
named Mark, mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles,"^ whom Barnabas and Paul took with
them ; of whom also it is said, ' And they had
also John as their attendant.' ^^ But that it is
he who wrote this, I would not say. For it is
not written that he went with them into Asia,
but, ' Now when Paul and his company set sail
from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia ;
and John departing from them returned to
Jerusalem.' ^*' But I think that he was some 16
other one of those in Asia ; as they say that
there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bear-
ing the name of John.^^
" And from the ideas, and from the words 17
and their arrangement, it may be reasonably
conjectured that this one is different from
that one.-** For the Gospel and Epistle 18
agree with each other and begin in the same
manner. The one says, ' In the beginning was
the AVord ' ; "^ the other, ' That which was from
the beginning.' " The one : 'And the Word was
made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld
his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of
the Father ' ; "' the other says the same things
slightly altered : ' Which we have heard, which
we have seen with our eyes ; which we have
looked upon and our hands have handled of
the Word of life, — and the life was mani-
fested.' -^ For he introduces these things 19
at the beginning, maintaining them, as is
evident from what follows, in opposition to those
who said that the Lord had not come in the
flesh. Wherefore also he carefully adds, ' And
we have seen and bear witness, and declare unto
you the eternal life which was with the Father
and was manifested unto us. That which we
have seen and heard declare we unto you
also.' -■"' He holds to this and does not 20
digress from his subject, but discusses every-
""' In Acts xii. 12, 25, xiii. 5, 13, xv. 37. On Mark and the sec-
ond Gospel, see above, 13k. 11. chap. 15, note 4.
1' Acts xiii. 5. '* Acts xiii. 13.
I'J Sec above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 13; and on the " presbyter
John," mentioned by Papias, see also note 4 on the same chapter,
and on his rclaticm to the Apocalypse, the same chapter, note 14.
-" i.e. the writer of the Apocalypse is different from the writer of
the Gospel and Epistles.
21 John i. I. -* I John i. i, 2.
"- I John i. I. 24 I John i. 2, 3.
-■' John i. 14.
VII. 26.]
VARIOUS WRITINGS OF DIONYSIUS.
311
thing umler the same heads and names ;
21 some of which we will briefly mention. Any
one who examines carefully will find the
phrases, 'the life,' 'the light,' 'turning from
darkness,' frequently occurring in both ; also
continually, ' truth,' 'grace,' 'joy,' ' the flesh and
blood of the Lord,' 'the judgment,' ' the forgive-
ness of sins,' ' the love of God toward us,' the
* commandment that we love one another,' that
we should ' keep all the commandments ' ; the
' conviction of the world, of the Devil, of Anti-
Christ,' the 'promise of the Holy Spirit,' the
'adoption of God,' the 'faith continually re-
(juired of us,' ' the Father and the Son,' occur
everywhere. In fact, it is plainly to be seen that
one and the same character marks the
22 Gospel and the Epistle throughout. But
the Apocalypse is different from these writ-
ings and foreign to them ; not touching, nor in
the least bordering upon them ; almost, so to
speak, without even a syllable in common
23 with them. Nay more, the EpisUe — for I
pass by the Gospel — does not mention nor
does it contain any intimation of the Apocalypse,
nor does the Apocalypse of the Epistle. But
Paul, in his epistles, gives some indication of his
revelations,-'' diough he has not written them out
by themselves.
24 " Moreover, it can also be shown that the
diction of the Gospel and Episde differs
25 from that of the Apocalypse. For they
were written not only without error as re-
gards the Greek language, but also with ele-
gance in dieir expression, in their reasonings,
and in their entire structure. They are far in-
deed from betraying any barbarism or solecism,
or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had,
as it seems, both the requisites of discourse, —
that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of
expression, — as the Lord had bestowed
26 them both upon him. I do not deny that
the other writer saw a revelation and re-
ceived knowledge and prophecy. I perceive,
however, that his dialect and language are not
accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous
27 idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. It
is unnecessary to point these out here, for I
would not have any one think that I have said
these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have
said what I have only with the purpose of show-
ing clearly the difference between the writings."
CHAPTER XXVI.
The Epistles of Dionysius.
1 Besides these, many other episUes of
Dionysius are extant, as those against Sabel-
20 See 2 Cor. xii. i sq., Gal. ii. 2.
lius,^ addressed to Amnion,^ bishop of the church
of Bernice, and one to Telcsphorus,^ and one to
Kuphranor, and again another to Ammon and
Euporus. He wrote also four other books on
the same subject, which he addressed to
his namesake 1 )ionysius, in Rome.'' Besides 2
these many of his epistles are with us,
and large books written in epistolary form, as
those on Nature,'"^ addressed to the young man
Timothy, and one on Temptations," which
he also dedicated to Euphranor. More- 3
over, in a letter to Basilides,^ bishop of the
parishes in Pentapolis, he says that he had
written an exposition of the beginning of I'xclc-
siastes.^ And he has left us also various letters
1 On Sabellius, and on Dionysius' attitude toward Sabellianism,
sec above, chap. 6, note i.
- The works addressed to Ammon, Telcsphorus, Euphranor, and
Euporus, are no longer extant, nor do we know anylhinj^ about
them (but see chap. 6, note 2, above). It is possible that it was in
these epistles that Dionysius laid himself open in his zeal ajjaiust
the Sabellians to the charge of tritheism, which aroused complaints
against him, and resulted in his being obliged to defend himself in
his work addressed to Dionysius of Rome. If so, these letters must
have been written before that work, though perhaps not long before.
Of Ammon himself we know nothing. There were a number of cities
in North Africa, called Berenice (the form Bernice is exceptional),
but, according to Wiltsch, Berenice, a city of Libya Pentapolis, ir
Cyrenaica, is meant in the present case. This city (whose original
name was Hesperides) lay on the Mediterranean some si.v hundred
miles west of Alexandria.
2 Of Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus, we know nothing.
^ On these books addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see below,
P- 397- . . . .
^ oi Trepl <|)vtreio?. The date and immediate occasion of this
work cannot be determined. The supposition of Dittrich, that it
was written before Dionysius became bishop, while he had more
leisure than afterward for philosophical study, has much in its favor.
The young man, Timothy, to whom it was addressed, is perhaps to
be identified with the one mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, § 4. That
it was a work of considerable extent, embracing more than one book,
is indicated by Eusebius in this passage. A long extract from it is
given by Eusebius in his Prcep. Evang. XIV. 23-27 (printed with
commentary by Routh, Rel. Sac. IV. p. 393 sq. ; translated in the
Antc-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 84-91), and a few fragments
arc still preserved in a Vatican codex, and have been published by
Simon de Magistris, in his edition of Dionysius' works (Rome,
1796), p. 44 sq. (cf. also Routh, IV. p. 41S, 419). In the extract
quoted by Eusebius, Dionysius deals solely with the atomic theory
of Democritus and Epicurus. This subject may have occupied the
greater part of the work, but evidently, as Dittrich remarks {Diony-
sius der Grossc, p. 12), the doctrines of other physicists were also
dealt with (cf. the words with which Eusebius introduces his ex-
tracts; Prcep. EzHing. XIV. 22. 10: " I will subjoin from the books
[of Ijionysius] On Nature- a few of the things urged against Epi-
curus." The translation in the Aittc-Niccne Fathers, Vol. VI.
p. 84, note 7, which implies that the work was written " against the
Epicureans" is not correct). Aiicri? seems to have been taken by
Dionysius in the sense of the "Universe" (compare, for instance,
the words of Cicero, De nat. deoruiii, II., to which Dittrich refers:
Sunt autem, qui natnrie noinine rerum iiniversitatcm intelli-
gunt), and to have been devoted to a refutation of the doctrines of
various heathen philosophers in regard to the origin of the universe.
For a fuller discussion of the work, see Dittrich, ibid. p. 12 sq.
'' This work on Temptations (Trepl ireipacrp-ttir) is no longer
extant, nor do we know anything about the time or occasion of its
composition. Dittrich strangely omits all reference to it. Of
Euphranor, as remarked in note 3, we know nothing.
' Of this Basilides we know only what Eusebius tells us here,
that he was bishop of the " parishes in Pentapolis" (or Cyrenaica, a
district, and under the Romans a province, lying west of Egypt,
along the Mediterranean Sea), which would seem to imply that he
was metropolitan of that district (cf. Routh, ii*?/. Sac. III. p. 235).
A canonical epistle addressed to him by Dionysius is still extant
(see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note i). Eusebius tells us that
Dionysius addressed " various epistles " to him, but no others are
known to us.
« It is possible that this work also, like that On Nature, was
written, as Dittrich thinks, before Dionysius became bishop. Euse-
bius evidently had not seen the commentary himself, for he speaks
only of Dionysius' reference to it. A few fragments, supposed to be
parts of this commentary, were published in the appendix to the
fourteenth volume of Galland's Bibliothcca Patrum I'etcrunr, after
the latter's death, and were afterward reprinted in De Magistris'
edition of Dionysius' works, p. i sq. (Englisli translation in the
I Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 111-114). The fragments, or at least
312
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. 26.
addressed to this same person. Thus much
Dionysius.
But our account of these matters being now
completed, permit us to show to posterity the
character of our own age.'
CHAPTER XXVII.
Paul of Samosatiiy and the Heresy introduced
by hivi at Antioch.
1 After Xystus had presided over the
church of Rome for eleven years/ Diony-
sius,- namesake of him of Alexandria, succeeded
him. About the same time Demetrianus ^ died
in Antioch, and Paul of Samosata* received
a part of them, are ascribed to Dionysius in the codex in which they
are found, and are very likely genuine, though we cannot speak
with certainty. For fuller particulars, see Dittrich, p. 22 sq.
" rfji/ Ka9' rjAici? yei'eo.i'. This seems to indicate that the events
recorded by Eusebius from this point on took place during his own
lifetime. See above, p. 4.
' Xystus II. was bishop only eleven months, not eleven years.
See chap. 5, note 5. Eusebius' chronology of the Roman bishops of
this time is in inextricable confusion.
- After the martyrdom of Xystus II. the bishopric of Rome re-
mained vacant for nearly a year on account of the severe persecution
of Valerian. Dionysius became bishop on the 22d of July, 259, ac-
cording to the Liberian catalogue. Lipsius accepts this as the
correct date. Jerome's version of the Chrcn. gives the twelfth year
of " Valerian and Gallienus " (i.e. 265-266) which is wide of the
mark. The Armenian Chron. gives the eighth year of the same
reign. As to the duration of his episcopate, authorities vary consid-
erably. Eusebius (chap. 30, § 23, below) and Jerome's version of
the Chron. say nine years; the Armenian Chron.., twelve; the
Liberian catalogue, eight. Lipsius shows that nine is the correct
figure, and that five months and two days are to be read instead of
the two months and four days of the Liberian catalogue. According
to Lipsius, then, he was bishop until Dec. 27, 268. Dionysius of
Alexandria addressed to Dionysius of Rome, while the latter was
still a presbyter, one of his epistles on baptism (see above, chap. 7,
§ 6, where the latter is called by Eusebius a " learned and capable
man"). Another epistle of the same writer addressed to him is
mentioned in chap. 9, § 6. Dionysius of Alexandria's four books
against the Sabellians were likewise addressed to him (see chap. 26,
above, and Bk. VI. chap. 40, note i). Gallienus' edict of toleration
was promulgated while Dionysius was bishop (see chap. 13, note 3).
3 On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.
* Paul of Samosata was one of the most famous heretics of the
early Church. He was bishop of Antioch and at the same time
viceroy of Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra. Both versions of Eusebius'
Chron. put the date of his accession to the see of Antioch in the
seventh year of Valerian and Gallienus, the year of Abr. 2277
(2278), i.e. in a.d. 259 (260) ; and Jerome's version puts his deposi-
tion in the year of Abr. 2283, i.e. a.d. 265. These dates, however,
are not to be relied upon. Harnack {^Zcit dcs Ignatius, p. 51)
shows that he became bishop between 257 and 260. Our chief
knowledge of his character and career is derived from the encyclical
letter written by the members of the council which condemned him,
and (luoted in part by Eusebius in chap. 30, below. This, as will
be seen, paints his character in very black colors. It may be some-
what overdrawn, for it was written by his enemies; at the same
time, such an official communication can hardly have falsified the
facts to any great extent. We may rely then upon its general
truthfulness. Paul reproduced the heresy of Artemon (s«e above,
Bk. V. chap. 28), teaching that Christ was a mere man, though he
was filled witli divine power, and that from his birth, not merely
from his baptism, as the Ebionites had held. He admitted, too, the
generation by the Holy Spirit. " He denied the personality of the
Logos and of the Holy Spirit, and considered them merely powers
of God, like reason and mind in man; but granted that the Logos
dwelt in Christ in a larger measure than in any former messenger
of God, and taught, like the Socinians in later times, a gradual ele-
vation of Christ, determined by his own moral development, to
divine dignity. He admitted that Christ remained free from sin,
conquered the sin of our forefathers, and then became the Saviour
of the race" (SchafT). At various Antiochian .synods (the exact
number of them we do not know), efforts were made to procure his
condemnation, but they were not successful. Finally one of the
synods condemned and excommunicated him, and Domnus was
appointed bi.shop in his place. The date of this synod is ordinarily
fixed at 268 or 269, but it cannot have occurred in 269, and probably
occurred earlier than 268 (see below, chap. 29, note i). Since Paul
was in favor with Zenobia, his deposition could not be effected until
272, when Aurclian conquered her. Being appealed to by the
Church, Aurelian left the decision between the claims of Paul and
that episcopate. As he held, contrary to 2
the teaching of the Church, low and degraded
views of Christ, namely, that in his nature he
was a common man, Dionysius of Alexandria
was entreated to come to the synod.* But being
unable to come on account of age and physical
weakness, he gave his opinion on the subject
under consideration by letter." But all the other
pastors of the churches from all directions, made
haste to assemble at Antioch, as against a de-
spoiler of the flock of Christ.
CHAPTER XXVni.
The Illustrious Bishops of that Time.
Of these, the most eminent were Firmili- 1
anus,^ bishop of Ceesarea in Cappadocia ;
the brothers Gregory^ and Athenodorus, pas-
tors of the churches in Pontus ; Helenus^ of
the parish of Tarsus, and Nicomas'* of Iconium ;
moreover, Hymengeus,* of the church of Jeru-
salem, and Theotecnus*' of the neighboring
church of Caesarea ; and besides these Maxi-
mus,' who presided in a distinguished manner
over the brethren in Bostra. If any should
count them up he could not fail to note a great
many others, besides presbyters and deacons,
who were at that time assembled for the same
cause in the above-mentioned city.* But
Domnu? to the bishops of Rome and Italy, who decided at once for
Domnus, and Paul was therefore deposed and driven out in disgrace.
Our sources for a knowledge of Paul and his heresy are the
letter quoted in chap. 30; a number of fragments from the acts of
the council, given by Routh, Ril. Sac. 111. 287 sq.; and scattered
notices in the Fathers of the fourth century, especially Athanasius,
Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, &c. Cf. also Jerome's de vir. ill. 71,
and Epiphanius' Hn-r. 65. See Harnack's article Monarchianis-
miis, in Herzog, second ed. (abbreviated in Schaff'-Herzog) ; also
Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christ. Biog., art. Paulus of Samosata.
6 This synod to which Dionysius was invited was not the last
one, at which Paul was condemned, but one of the earlier ones, at
which his case was considered. It is not probable that the synod
was called especially to consider his case, but that at two or more
of the regular annual .synods of Antioch the subject was discussed
without result, until finally condemnation was procured (cf. Har-
nack, ihid. p. 52, and Lipsius, ibid. p. 228). Dionysius mentions
the fact that he was invited to attend this synod in an epistle ad-
dressed to Cornelius, according to Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 46.
** Jerome, de vir. ill. 69, tells us that Dionysius wrote a few days
before his death, but that is only an inference drawn from Eusebius'
statement. This epistle of Dionysius is no longer extant, although
a copy of it was originally appended to the encyclical of the Anti-
ochian synod (as we learn from chap. 30, § 4), and hence must have
been extant in the time of Eusebius, and also of Jerome. An epistle
purporting to have been written by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata
is given by Labbe, Coiicil. I. 850-893, but it is not authentic.
• On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.
2 Gregory Thaumaturgus. On him and his brother, Athenodo-
rus, see Bk. VI. chap. 30, notes i and 2.
3 On Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. He presided at
the final council which deposed Paul of Samosata, according to the
Libelliis Synodicns (.see Labbe, Concilia, I. 893, 901), and this is
confirmed by the fact that in the encyclical epistle written by this
synod his name stands first (see chap. jo).
■• Of Nicomas, bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, we know noth-
ing. An earlier bishop of the same city, named Celsus, is men-
tioned in Book VI. chap. 19, above.
^ On Hymenaeus, see chap. 14, note 11.
" On Thentecnus, see chap. 14, note g.
" Of Maximus, bishop of Bostra, in Ar.ibia, we know nothing.
On Beryllus, an earlier and more celebrated bishop of the same city,
see above, Bk. VI. chap. 33.
B i.e. Antioch,
VII. 30.]
PAUL OF SAMOSATA.
313
2 these were the most illustrious. When all
of these assembled at different times and
frequently to consider these matters, the argu-
ments and questions were discussed at every
meeting ; the adherents of the Samosatian en-
deavoring to cover and conceal his heterodoxy,
and the others striving zealously to lay bare and
make manifest his heresy and blasphemy against
Christ.
3 Meanwhile, Dionysius died in the twelfth
year of the reign of Gallienus,'"* having held
the episcopate of Alexandria for seventeen
4 years, and Maximus ^^ succeeded him. Gal-
lienus after a reign of fifteen years " was
succeeded by Claudius/" who in two years deliv-
ered the government to Aurelian.
CHAPTER XXIX.
Paul, having been refuted by Malchioii, a Pres-
byter from the Sophists, 7aas excommunicated.
1 During his reign a final synod ^ composed
of a great many bishops was held, and the
leader of heresy^ in Antioch was detected, and
his false doctrine clearly shown before all, and
he was excommunicated from the Catholic
2 Church under heaven.^ Malchion especially
drew him out of his hiding-place and refuted
" In both versions of the Chroii. the death of Dionysius is put
in the eleventh year of GaUienus, i.e. August, 263, to August, 264,
and this, or the date given here by Eusebius (the twelfth year,
August, 264, to August, 265) is undoubtedly correct. Upon the
dates of his accession and death, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note i.
"• Maximus had been a presbyter while Dionysius was bishop of
Ale.xandria, and had shared with him the hardships of the Decian
and Valerian persecutions (see above, chap. 11). In chap. 32, he
is said to have held office eighteen years, and with this both ver-
sions of the Ckroti. agree, and there is no reason to doubt the accu-
racy of the report.
11 Eusebius here, as in his Chron., reckons the reign of GaUie-
nus as beginning with the date of his association with his father in
the supreme power; i.e. August, 253.
1- Claudius became emperor in March, 268, and died of an epi-
demic in Sirmium some time in the year 270, when he was succeeded
by Aurelian, whom he had himself appointed his successor just be-
fore his death. It is, perhaps, with this in mind that Eusebius uses
the somewhat peculiar phrase, /u.€Ta5i6(ocrt jr\v r^yefioriav.
' Eusebius puts this council in the reign of Aurelian (270-275),
and in chap. 32 makes it subsequent to the siege of the Brucheium,
which, according to his Chron., took place in 272. The epistle
written at this council (and given in the next chapter) is addressed
to Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, and Dionysius, bishop of Rome,
so that the latter must have been alive in 272, if the council was
held as late as that. The council is ordinarily, however, assigned
to the year 269, and Dionysius' death to December of the same year;
but Lipsius has shown {ibid. p. 226 ff.) that the synod which Euse-
bius mentions here was held in all probability as early as 265 (but
not earlier than 264, because Dionysius of Alexandria was not suc-
ceeded by Maximus until that year), certainly not later than 268,
and hence it is not necessary to extend the episcopate of Dionysius
of Rome beyond 268, the date which he has shown to be most prob-
able (see chap. 27, note 2). Eusebius then is entirely mistaken in
putting the council into the reign of Aurelian.
- i.e. Paul of Samosata.
3 Malchion gained such fame from his controversy with Paul
that an account of him is given by Jerome in his dc vir. iU. 71. He
tells us, however, nothing new about him, except that he was the
author of an epistle to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome, referring
probably to the encyclical letter given in the next chapter. We do
not know upon what authority he bases this statement; in fact,
knowing the character of his work, we shall probably be safe in
assuming that the statement is no more than a guess on his part.
There is nothing improbable in the report, but we must remember
that Jerome is our only authority for it, and he is in such a case
very poor authority (nevertheless, in Fremantle's article, Malchion,
him. He was a man learned in other respects,
and principal of the sophist school of Grecian
learning in Antioch ; yet on account of the su-
perior nobility of his faith in Christ he had been
made a presbyter of that parish. This man,
having conducted a discussion with him, which
was taken down by stenographers and which we
know is still extant, was alone able to detect the
man who dissembled and deceived the others.
CHAPTER XXX.
The Epistle of the Bishops against Paul.
The pastors who had assembled about 1
this matter, prepared by common consent
an epistle addressed to Dionysius,' bishop of
Rome, and Maximus " of Alexandria, and sent
it to all the provinces. In this they make mani-
fest to all their own zeal and the perverse error
of Paul, and the arguments and discussions which
they had with him, and show the entire life and
conduct of the man. It may be well to put on
record at the present time the following extracts
from their writing :
" To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all 2
our fellow-ministers throughout the world,
bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and to the
whole Catholic Church under heaven,'^ Helenus,''
Hymenseus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus,
Proclus, Nicomas, x4ilianus, Paul, Bolanus, Pro-
togenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodorus;' Mal-
chion, and Lucius, and all the others who dwell
with us in the neighboring cities and nations,
bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and the
churches of God, greeting to the beloved
brethren in the Lord." A little farther on 3
they proceed thus : " We sent for and called
many of the bishops from a distance to relieve
us from this deadly doctrine ; as Dionysius of
Alexandria ^ and Firmilianus ^ of Cappadocia,
in the Diet, of Christ. Biog., the report is repeated as a fact). Both
Eusebius and Jerome tell us that the report of his discussion with
Paul was extant in their day, and a few fragments of it have been
preserved, and are given by Leontius {de Seeds, III. p. 504, accord-
ing to Fremantle).
3 TJjs vTrb Toi' oiipavov KaSoAiicij? ixxXridLa^, i.e. " from the entire
Catholic Church." The phrase is usually strengthened by a ^sa.^i, as
in the next chapter, § 2. On the use of the phrase, " Catholic
Church," see Bk. IV. chap. 15, note 6.
1 On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.
2 On Maximus of ."Alexandria, see chap. 28, note 10.
3 This phrase differs from that used in the previous chapter by
the addition of ira?.
•• On Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. On Hymenaeiis
and Theotecnus, see above, chap. 14, notes 11 and 9. Hierax is
possibly the bishop addressed by Dionysius in the epistle quoted in
chap. 21. Malchion is mentioned in the preceding chapter; Maxi-
mus of Bostra and Nicomas of Iconium, in chap. 28, as distinguished
bishops. Of the others we know nothing.
i* It has been suggested that Theodorus may be Gregory Thau-
maturgus, who was also known by that name (see Bk. VI. chap). 30) ;
but this is extremely improbable, for everywhere else in referring to
him as bishop, Eusebius calls him Gregory, and in chap. 31 speaks
of him as one of the most celebrated bishops, and puts him near the
head of the list. Here Theodorus is placed near the end of the list,
and no prominence is given him. There is in fact no reason to
identify the two. The name Theodorus was a very common one.
* See chap. 27.
' On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.
314
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. 30.
those blessed men. The first of these not con-
sidering the author of this delusion worthy to be
addressed, sent a letter to Antioch,** not writ-
ten to him, but to the entire parish, of which
4 we give a copy below. But Firmilianus
came twice ^ and condemned his innovations,
as we who were present know and testify, and
many others understand. But as he promised
to change his opinions, he believed him and
hoped that without any reproach to the Word
what was necessary would be done. So he de-
layed the matter, being deceived by him who
denied even his own God and Lord,'*^ and had
not kept the faith which he formerly held.
5 And now Firmilianus was again on his way
to Antioch, and had come as far as Tarsus,
because he had learned by experience his God-
denying wickedness. But while we, having come
together, were calling for him and awaiting his
arrival, he died.""
6 After other things they describe as fol-
lows the manner of life which he ^'^ led :
" Whereas he has departed from the rule of
faith,'-" and has turned aside after base and spu-
rious teachings, it is not necessary, — since he
is without, — that we should pass judgment upon
his practices : as for instance in that al-
7 thougli formerly destitute and poor, and
having received no wealth from his fathers,
nor made anything by trade or business, he
no\v possesses abundant wealth through his
ini(]uities and sacrilegious acts, and through
those things which he extorts from the breth-
ren,^^ depriving the injured of their rights
and promising to assist them for reward, yet
deceiving them, and plundering those who in
their trouble are ready to give that they may
obtain reconciliation with their oppressors,
8 * supposing that gain is godliness ' ; " — or
in that he is haughty, and is puffed up,
* On this epistle, see chap. 27, note 6. As we see from this
passage, the epistle of Dionysius was addressed not to Paul himself,
but to the council, and hence could not be identified with the epistle
given by Labbc, even were the latter authentic.
" It is plain from this passage that the case of Paul of Samosata
had been discussed in at least two Antiochian synods before the one
which deposed him, and not only in one as has been claimed. Tlie
passage shows, too, the way in which Paul escaped condemnation so
long. Not merely on account of his influential position, as some have
said, but also because he promised that he would give up his heresy
and conform his teaching to the orthodox faith. The language
would seem to imply that Firmilian had presided at the synod or
synods, which are referred to here; and this is assumed by most
writers. On Firmilian, see I'.k. VI. chap. 26, note 3.
"> The words "and Lord" are wanting in some good MSS. as
well as in Rufinus, and are consequently omitted by Schwegler and
Heinichen. Hut I have preferred to follow the majority of the MSS.
and all the other editors in retaining the words which are really
necessary to the sense; for it is not meant that Paul denied God,
but that he denied his God and Lord Jesus Christ; namely, by
rejecting his essential deity.
" On the date of Firmdian's death, see Bk. VL chap. 26, note 3,
above.
'2 i.e. Paul of Samosata. 12a ^ov Kavovoi.
" I follow Heinichen in reading u>u tn eKo-eiet tou? aSeX^tov^,
which is supported by five important MSS. (cf. Hcinichen's note
tit loco). The majority of the editors read lov aixfi xni o-tui k.t.A.,
which, however, is not so well supported by MS. authority. L.aem-
mcr, on the authority of a single codex, reads uiv en (cai aiUv, and
still other variations occur in some MSS.
1* I Tim. vi. 5.
and assumes worldly dignities, preferring to be
called ducenarius ^^ rather than bishop ; and
struts in the market-places, reading letters and
reciting them as he walks in public, attended by
a body-guard, with a multitude preceding and
following him, so that the faith is envied and
hated on account of his pride and haughti-
ness of heart ; — or in that he practices 9
chicanery in ecclesiastical assemblies, con-
trives to glorify himself, and deceive with ap-
pearances, and astonish the minds of the sim-
ple, preparing for himself a tribunal and lofty
throne,^" — not like a disciple of Christ, — and
possessing a ' secretum,' ^'' — like the rulers of the
world, — and so calling it, and striking his thigh
with his hand, and stamping on the tribunal with
his feet ; — or in that he rebukes and insults
those who do not applaud, and shake their hand-
kerchiefs as in the theaters, and shout and leap
about like the men and women that are stationed
around him, and hear him in this unbecoming
manner, but who listen reverently and orderly
as in the house of God ; — or in that he
violently and coarsely assails in public the ex-
pounders of the Word that have departed this
life, and magnifies himself, not as a bishop,
but as a sophist and juggler, and stops the 10
psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ, as being
the modern productions of modern men, and
trains women to sing psalms to himself in the
midst of the church on the great day of the
passover, which any one might shudder to hear,
and persuades the bishops and presbyters of
the neighboring districts and cities who fawn
I'' Paul was the " Procurator Ducenarius" of Zenobia, the queen
of Palmyra, an official so-called because his salary was 200 sesterlia.
" The Ducenarius was an imperial procurator, so-called from his
salary of 200 sesteria, or 1600 pounds a year. Some critics suppose
that the bishop of Antioch had actually obtained such an office from
Zenobia" (Gibbon). There seems to be no reason to doubt that
Paul held such a position under Zenobia, which appears to be the
implication of the words here, and so he is commonly spoken of as
a high official, even as "Viceroy" of Zenobia. We know from
Athanasius {Hist. Ar. § 71, 0.\f. ed. Chap. VIII. § 10), that he
was a great favorite with Zenobia, and that to her lie owed the privi-
lege of retaining his bishopric after the synod had deposed him.
This friendship shown toward him by Zenobia, who was of tlie
strictest manners, is much in his favor, and almost tempts us to
doubt the terrible character given him in this epistle by the members
of the synod. There must have been some palliating circumstances
in the case. He can hardly have been as unqualifiedly bad as this
letter paints him.
"■' Valesiiis says, " The Fathers do not here condemn Paul be-
cause he had a throne; . . . but because he erected a tribunal for
himself in the church and placed upon that a high throne. Rufinus,
therefore, translates this passage correctly: In t-ccU-sia vero tribu-
nal sibi inulto altins ijuiiiHjfite^-iii cxstrut, et thronuin in exccl-
siorihus collocarijiibct. Ihshops did sit on a seat a little higher
than the rest of the presbyters, but they did not have a tribunal."
This has been fre(iuently quoted, and is on the whole a true state-
ment of facts. But the Greek is P>)Mi M''' ""' Cpoi'oi' v^r\k6v, and
Rufinus is certainly wrong in putting his inulto altins with the
tribunal. The emphasis, as the Greek reads, is upon the fir\na as
sucli, not upon the height of it, while the 6p6vo<; is condemned
because of its height. The translation of Rufinus shows what was
the custom in his day. He could not understand that a ^^na should
be objected to as such.
'' (ireek ffijicptjToi', for the Latin secretum, which was the name
of the place where the civil magistrates and higher judges sat to
decide cases, and which was raised and enclosed with railings aiul
curtains in order to separate it from the people. In tlie present case
it means of course a sort of cabincl which Paul had at the side of
the tribunal, in which he could hold private conferences, and wliose
resemblance to the secretum of a civil magistrate he delighted to
I empliasizc.
vir. 30.]
PAUT. OF S AMOS AT A.
315
upon him, to advance the same ideas in
11 their cUscourses to the people. For to an-
ticipate something of what we shall i)resently
write, he is unwilling to acknowledge that the
Son of (lod has come down from heaven. And
this is not a mere assertion, but it is abundantly
l)roved from the records which we have sent
you; and not least where he says 'Jesus Christ
is from below.' '** But those singing to him and
extolling him among the people say that their
impious teacher has come down an angel from
heaven.''-' And he does not forbid such things ;
but the arrogant man is even present when
12 they are uttered. /\nd there are the women,
the ' subintroduct^e,' '"" as the people of An-
tioch call them, belonging to him and to the
presbyters and deacons that are with him. Al-
though he knows and has convicted these men,
yet he connives at this and their other incurable
sins, in order that they may be bound to him, and
through fear for themselves may not dare to ac-
cuse him for his wicked words and deeds."'' But he
has also made them rich ; on which account he is
loved and admired by those who covet such
13 things. We know, beloved, that the bishop
and all the clergy should be an example to
the people of all good works. And we are not
ignorant how many have fallen or incurred sus-
picion, through the women whom they have thus
brought in. So that even if we should allow
that he commits no sinful act, yet he ought to
avoid the suspicion which arises from such a
thing, lest he scandalize some one, or lead
14 others to imitate him. For how can he re-
prove or admonish another not to be too
familiar with women, — lest he fall, as it is writ-
ten,"' — when he has himself sent one away al-
ready, and now has two with him, blooming and
^^ 'Ir)(Tovv xpicTor KOLTtoOei'. Compare, by way of contrast, the
words of John iii. 31: "He tliat cometh from above is above all"
{h afojOev €p\6ixei'ot; eTrafto nai'Tiov ^aru') . The words quoted in
the epistle can hardly have been used by Paul himself. They are
rather to be regarded as a logical inference from his positions stated
by the writers of the epistle in order to bring out the blasphemous
nature of his views when contrasted with the statement in John,
which was doubtless in their minds while they wrote.
'■' The account seems to me without doubt overdrawn at this
point. It was such a common thing, from the time of Herod
Agrippa down, to accuse a man who was noted for his arrogance of
encouraging the people to call him an angel descended from heaven,
that we should almost be surprised if the accusation were omitted
here. We have no reason to think, in spite of the report of these
good Fathers, that Paul's presumption went to such a blasphemous
and at the same time absurd length.
I'Ja crvfiicxaKTOi. On these S itbiiitroductce , see Smith and Cheet-
ham's Diet, of Christ. Antig., s.v.
-" It is quite probable that Paul had given some ground for the
suspicions which the worthy bishops breathe here, but that is very
far from saying that he was actually guilty of immorality. In fact,
just below (§ 13), they show that these are nothing more than sus-
picions. E.xactly what position the two women held who are men-
tioned in § 14 it is difficult to say, but Paul must of course have
given some plausible reason for their presence, and this is implied
in § 16, where the writers say that were he orthodox, they would in-
quire his reasons for this conduct, but since he is a heretic, it is not
worth while to investigate the matter. As remarked above, while
the direct statements of the epistle can in the main hardly be
doubted, we must nevertheless remember that the prejudices of the
writers would lead them to paint the life of Paul as black as circum-
stances could possibly warrant, and unfounded suspicions might
therefore easily be taken as equivalent to proved charges.
-1 cf. £.cclesiasticus xxv.
beautiful, and takes them with him wherever he
goes, and at the same time lives in luxury
and surfeiting? Because of these things all 15
mourn and lament by themselves ; but they
so fear his tyranny and power, tliat they
dare not accuse him. lUit as we have saitl, 16
while one might call the man to account
for this conduct, if he held the Catholic doc-
trine and was numbered with us," since he hns
scorned the mystery and struts about in tlie
abominable heresy of Artemas'-''^ (for why should
we not mention his father?), we think it un-
necessary to tlemand of him an explanation of
these things."
Afterwards, at the close of the episde, 17
they add these words :
"Therefore we have been compelled to ex-
communicate him, since he sets himself against
God, and refuses to obey ; and to appoint in
his place another bishop for the Catholic Church.
By divine direction, as we believe, we have ap-
pointed Domnus,-' who is adorned with all the
qualities becoming in a bishop, and who is a
son of the blessed Demetrianus,-' who formerly
presided in a distinguished manner over the
same parish. We have informed you of this that
you may write to him, and may receive letters of
communion-" from him. But let this man write
to Artemas ; and let those who think as Artemas
does, communicate with him." ^
22 'We get a glimpse here of the relative importance of orthodoxy
and morality in the minds of these Fathers. Had Paul been ortho-
dox, they would have asked him to explain his course, and would
have endeavored to persuade him to reform his conduct ; but since
he was a heretic, it was not worth while. It is noticeable that he is
not condemned because he is immoral, but because he is heretical.
The implication is that he might have been even worse than he was
in his morals and yet no decisive steps have been taken against him,
had he not deviated from the orthodox faith. The Fathers, in fact,
by their letters, put themselves in a sad dilemma. Either Paul was
not as wicked as they try to make him out, or else they were shame-
fully indifferent to the moral character of their bishops, and even of
the incumbents of their most prominent sees.
-■' On Artemas, or Artemon, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note i. Paul's
heresy was a reproduction of his, as remarked above, chap. 27, note 4.
-■• The action of this council in appointing Domnus was entirely
irregular, as the choice of the bishop devolved upon the clergy and the
people of the diocese. But the synod was afraid that Paul's influence
would be great enough to secure his re-election, and hence they took
this summary means of disposing of him. But it was only after the
accession of Aurelian that Paul was actually removed from his bish-
opric and Domnus was enabled to enter upon his office (see chap.
27, note 4). The exact date of Domnus' appointment is uncertain,
as already shown (see the note just referred to) ; so also the date of
his death. Both versions of the Chroii. put his accession in the
yearof Abr. 2283 (a.d. 265), and Jerome's version puts the acces-
sion of his successor, Timaeus, in the year of Abr. 2288 (a.d. 270),
while the Armenian omits the notice entirely. We can place no
reliance whatever upon these dates; the date of Domnus' death
is certainly at least two years too early (see the note already re-
ferred to) .
-■J On Demetrianus, the predecessor of Paul in the episcopate of
Antioch, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.
-'J Ta Koi.vu}viK.a. ypdij.ij.aTa. Valesius says: "The Latins call
them literas communicator ias , and the use of them is very ancient
in the Church.^ They were also called formates (cf. Augustine
Epistle 163). These writers were of two kinds: the one given to
the clergy and laity when they were going to travel, in order that
they might be admitted to communion by foreign bishops; while the
other kind were sent by bishops to other bishops to declare their
communion with them, and were in turn received from other bish-
ops. Of the latter the synod speaks here. They were usually
sent by new bishops soon after their ordination." Valesius refers
to Augustine {ibid.), to Cyprian's epistle to Cornelius {Ep. 41,
al. 45), and to the synodical epistle of the Council of Sardica.
-' This is a very keen bit of sarcasm. As Harnack remarks, the
mention of Artemas in this way proves (or at least renders it very
3i6
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. 30.
18
19
21
As Paul had fallen from the episcopate,
as well as from the orthodox faith, Doninus,
as has been said, became bishop of the
church at Antioch. But as Paul refused to
surrender the church building, the Emperor
Aurelian was petitioned ; and he decided the
matter most equitably, ordering the building to
be given to those to whom the bishops of Italy
and of the city of Rome should adjudge it.-*
Thus this man was driven out of the church,
with extreme disgrace, by the worldly power.
20 Such was Aurelian's treatment of us at that
time ; but in the course of his reign he
changed his mind in regard to us, and was moved
by certain advisers to institute a persecution
against us.^ And there was great talk about
this on every side. But as he was about to
do it, and was, so to speak, in the very act
of signing the decrees against us, the divine judg-
ment came upon him and restrained him at the
very verge '^^ of his undertaking, showing in a
manner that all could see clearly, that the rulers
of this world can never find an opportunity
against the churches of Christ, except the hand
that defends them permits it, in divine and heav-
enly judgment, for the sake of discipline and
correction, at such times as it sees best.
22 After a reign of six years,'^^ Aurelian was
succeeded by Probus. He reigned for the
same number of years, and Cams, with his sons,
Carinus and Numerianus, succeeded him. After
they had reigned less than three years the gov-
ernment devolved on Diocletian, and those as-
sociated with him.''- Under them took place
probable) that he was still alive at this time, in which case his
activity in Rome must be put somewhat later than the commonly
accepted dates, viz. the episcopate of Zephyrinus (202-217).
2* See chap. 27, note 4. The bishop of Rome to whose judgment
Aurelian appealed was Felix, mentioned below.
-■' Aurelian, according to tradition, was the author of the ninth
of the " ten great persecutions " against the Church. But the report
is a mistake. Eusebius apparently is the ultimate source to which
the report is to be referred, but he says expressly that he died before
he was able to begin his intended persecution, and more than that,
that he was even prevented from signing the decree, so that it is not
proper to speak even of an hostile edict of Aurelian (as many do
who reject the actual persecution). It is true that in Lactantius'
De ntori. persccittorHut, chap. 6, it is said that Aurelian actually
issued edicts against the Christians, but that he died before they had
found their way to the most distant provinces. It seems probable,
however, that Eusebius' account is nearest the truth, and that the
reports that Aurelian actually signed the edicts as well as that he
commenced the persecution are both developments from the original
and more correct version of the affair which Eusebius gives. There
is no reason to doubt the account of Eusebius. Aurelian's conduct
in the case of Paul docs not imply any special friendliness on his
part toward the Church. The Christians had secured legal recog-
nition under Gallicnus; and it was a simple act of common justice
to put the valuable property of the Church in Antioch into the hands
of the rightful owners whoever they mi'.;ht be. His act does imply,
however, that he cannot have been in the beginning actively hostile
to the Church, for in that case he would simply have driven Paul
out, and confiscated the property.
*" tLOvovov\i ef oL-yKuji'oji' t^s evx^'PW^'"? OMibv iiriSta/JLOvaa.
3> Aurelian reigned from 270 to 275, and was succeeded by
Tacitus, who ruled only six months, and he in turn by Probus (276 to
282), who was followed by Carus and his sons Carinus and Numerian,
and they in turn by Diocletian in 284. Eusebius here omits Tacitus,
although he mentions him in his C/troi., and assigns six months to
his reign, and five years and six months to the reign of Aurelian.
2- T)iocletian associated Maximian with himself in the govern-
ment in 286, and sent him to command the West with the title of
Augustus. In 293 he appointed Constantius Chlorus and Galerius
as Ca;sars, giving to the former the government of Gaul and Britain,
the persecution of our time, and the destruc-
tion of the churches connected with it.
Shortly before this, Dionysius,^ bishop of 23
Rome, after holding office for nine years,
died, and was succeeded by Felix.^
CHAPTER XXXI.
T/ie Perversive Heresy of the Alanicheans zvliich
began at this Time.
At this time, the madman,^ named from 1
his demoniacal heresy, armed himself in
the perversion of his reason, as the devil, Satan,
to the latter that of the provinces between the Adriatic and the
Euxine, while Maximian held Africa and Italy, and Diocletian him-
self retained the provinces of Asia. He issued an edict, opening his
famous persecution against the Christians, of which Eusebius gives
an account in the next book, on Feb. 23, 303.
23 On Dionysius, bishop of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.
^ According to the Liberian catalogue, Felix became bishop on
the fifth of January, 269, and held office five years eleven months and
twenty-five days, until the thirtieth of December, 274, and these dates
Lipsius accepts as correct. Eusebius, in chap. 32, gives five years
as the duration of his episcopate, and with this Jerome's version of
the Chron. agrees, while the Armenian gives nineteen years, which
is absolutely inconsistent with its own notices, and must be of course
a copyist's mistake. Jerome puts the accession of Felix in the first
year of Probus, which is wide of the mark, and the Armenian in the
first year of Aurelian, which is not so far out of the way.
Felix addressed a letter, in regard to Paul of Samosata, to Maxi-
mus and the clergy of Antioch, of which fragments have been pre-
served in the Apology of Cyril of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the
Council of Ephesus (given by Mansi, Cone. I. 1114). The report
of his martyrdom is probably a mistake, and has resulted from con-
fusing him with Feli.x II., who was bishop of Rome in the fourth
century.
1 The name Manes, or Mani, is not of Greek, but of Persian or
Semitic origin. It has not yet been satisfactorily explained. The
Greek form is Macr/s or Mat'i^iiios; the Latin form. Manes or
Matiich(Eus. In this place Eusebius instead of giving him his true
name makes a play upon it, calling him 6 ^l.avi\<; to.'; <f>pdva<;, " the
madman." This does not imply that Eusebius supposed his name
was originally Greek. He perhaps — as others of the Fathers did —
regarded it as a sign of divine providence that the Persian name
chosen by himself (Mani was not his original name) should when
reproduced in Greek bear such a significant meaning. See Stroth's
note on this passage.
Eusebius' brief account is the first authentic description we have
of Manes and Manicha;ism. It is difficult to get at the exact truth
in regard to the life of Manes himself. We have it reported in two
conflicting forms, an Oriental and an Occidental. The former, how-
ever, — though our sources for it are much later than for the latter —
is undoubtedly the more reliable of the two. The differences be-
tween the two accounts cannot be discussed here. We know that
Mani was a well-educated Persian philosopher of the third century
(according to Kessler, 205-276 a.d. ; according to the Oriental source
used by Beausobre, about 240-276), who attempted to supersede
Zoroastrianism, the old religion of Persia, by a syncretistic system
made up of elements taken from Parsism, Buddhism, and Christian-
ity. He was at first well received by the Persian king. Sapor I.,
but aroused the hatred of the Magian priests, and was compelled to
flee from the country. Returning after some time, he gained a
large following, but was put to death by King Varanes I. about
276 A.D. His sect spread rapidly throughout Christendom, and in
spite of repeated persecutions flourished for many centuries. The
mysteriousness of its doctrine, its compact organization, its apparent
solution of the terrible problem of evil, and its show of ascetic holi-
ness combined to make it very attractive to thoughtful minds, as,
e.g. to Augustine. The fundamental principle of the system is a
radical dualism between good and evil, light and darkness. This
dualism runs through its morals as well as through its theology,
and the result Is a rigid asceticism. Christianity furnished .some
ideas, but its influence is chiefly seen in the organization of the
sect, which had apostles, bishops, presbyters, deacons, and traveling
missionaries. l\ianichaeism cannot be called a heresy, — it was
rather an independent religion as Mohammedanism was. The sys-
tem cannot be further discussed here. The chief works upon the
subject are Beausobre's //I'si. Crit. de Maiiicliie ct liii Matiichi-
isiiic, Amst. 1734 and 1739, 2 vols.; Baur's Das Manichaischc
Religionssystein, Tiib. 1831; FlUgel's Mani, Seine LeJire unii
seine Schriftcn, aus den Filirist dcs AH yakub an-Nadiin,
Leipzig, 1882; and two works by Kessler (Leipzig, 1876 and 188?).
See also the discussions of the .system in the varlovis Church his-
tories, and especially the respective articles by Stokes and Kessler
in Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christ, Diog. and in llerzog.
VII. 32.]
DISTINGUISHED ECCLESIASTICS.
317
who himself fights against God, put him forward
to the destruction of many. He was a barbarian
in Hfe, botli in word and deed ; and in his
nature demoniacal and insane. In consequence
of this he sought to pose as Christ, and being
])uffed up in his madness, he proclaimed himself
the Paraclete and the very Holy Spirit ; ^ and
afterwards, like Christ, he chose twelve dis-
2 ciples as partners of his new doctrine. And
he patched together false and godless doc-
trines collected from a multitude of long-extinct
impieties, and swept them, like a deadly poison,
from Persia to our part of the world. From
him the impious name of the Manicheans is still
prevalent among many. Such was the founda-
tion of this "knowledge falsely so-called," ^ which
sprang up in those times.
CHAPTER XXXII.
T/ie Dist'uiguishcd Ecclesiastics^ of otir Day,
and 7v/iich of them survived until the De-
struction of the Churches.
1 At this time, Felix," having presided over
the church of Rome for five years, was suc-
ceeded "bv Eutvchianus,^ but he in less than ten
months left the position to Caius,* who lived in
our day. He held it about fifteen years, and
was in turn succeeded by Marcellinus,^ who was
- Beausobre maintains that Mani did not pretend to be the
Paraclete, but merely a man, the messenger of the Paraclete. The
Fathers generally, however, agree with Eusebius in asserting that
his claims were of the very highest sort. The point cannot be satis-
factorily settled.
^ See I Tim. vi. 20. ^ kKK\r](ria<niK(av avSpiav.
- On Feli.\, see chap. 30, note 34.
2 Jerome's version of the Cliron. agrees with this passage in
assigning eight months to the episcopate of Eutychianus, while the
Armenian gives him only two months. The Liberian catalogue, how-
ever, gives eight years eleven months and three days; and Lipsius
accepts these figures as correct, putting his accession on the fifth of
January, 275, and his death on the eighth of December, 283. Jerome
puts his accession ii. the fifth year of Probus, which is wide of the
mark, the Armenian in the second year, which is also too late by
about two years. Lipsius explains the eight months of the Church
History and the Chroii. as a change, in their original source, of
years to months. The present error makes up in part for the error
in chap. 27, where Xystus is given eleven years instead of eleven
months. Eutychianus was not a martyr, but was buried, according
to the Liberian catalogue, in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, a state-
ment which has been confirmed by the discovery of a stone bearing
his name.
^ According to the Liberian catalogue, Caius became bishop on
the 17th of December, 283, and held ofhce for twelve years four
months and si.x (or seven) days, i.e. until April 22, 296, and these
dates are accepted by Lipsius as correct. Both versions of the
Chron. agree with the History in assigning fifteen years to Caius'
episcopate, but this error is of a piece with the others which abound
in this period. The report of his martyrdom is fabulous.
" According to the Liberian catalogue, Marcellinus became
bishop on the 30th of June, 296, and held office for eight years three
months and twenty-five days, i.e. until the 25th of October, 304,
and these dates Lipsius accepts as correct, although there is con-
siderable uncertainty as to the e.xact date of his death. Jerome's
version of the Chron. puts his accession in the twelfth year of
Diocletian, which is not far out of the way, but does not give the
duration of his episcopate, nor does Eusebius in his History. The
Armenian Chron. does not mention Marcellinus at all. Tradition,
although denied by many of the Fathers, says that he proved wanting
in the Diocletian persecution, and this seems to have been a fact.
It is also said that he afterward repented and suffered martyrdom,
but that is only an invention. The expression of Eusebius in this
connection is ambiguous; he simply says he was " overtaken by the
persecutiim," which might mean martyrdom, or might mean simply
arrest. The eleven bishops that preceded him from Pontianus to
overtaken by the persecution. About the 2
same time Timneus " received the episcopate
of Antioch after Domnus," and Cyril,** who lived
in our day, succeeded him. In his time we
became accpainted with Dorothcus,'"' a man of
learning among those of his day, who was hon-
ored with the office of presbyter in Antioch,
He was a lover of the beautiful in divine things,
and devoted himself to the Hebrew language,
so that he read the Hebrew Scriptures
with facility.^'' He belonged to those who 3
were especially liberal, and was not unac-
quainted with Grecian propedeutics.'^ Besides
this he was a eunuch,'" having been so from
his very birth. On this account, as if it were a
miracle, the emperor '^ took him into his family,
and honored him by placing him over the
purple dye-works at Tyre. We have heard
him expound the Scriptures wisely in
the Church. After Cyril, Tyrannus '■* re- 4
Caius were buried in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, but he was
buried in those of Priscilla.
I- Of Timaius we know nothing, nor can we fix his dates. The
Chron. puts his accession in the year of Abr. 2288 (270 a.d.), and
the accession of his successor, Cyril, in 2297 (279 a.d.), but the
former at least is certainly far too early. Harnack {Zeit des Igna-
tius, p. 53) concludes that Cyril must have been bishop as early as
280, and hence neither Domnus nor Timseus can have held office a
great while.
'' On Domnus, see chap. 30, note 24.
* According to Jerome's Chron., Cyril became bishop in the
year of Abr. 2297, or fourth year of Probus (279-280 a.d.); and
Harnack accepts this as at least approximately correct. The same
authority puts the accession of his successor, Tyrannus, in the
eighteenth year of Diocletian (301-302 a.d.), and just below Euse-
bius says that the destruction of the churches (in Diocletian's perse-
cution) took place under Tyrannus, not under Cyril. But the Passio
sajtctorinn quattuor coronatorutn (see Mason's Persecution of
Diocletian, p. 259-271) contains a reference to him which assumes
that he was condemned to the mines, and died there after three
years. The condemnation, if a fact, must have taken place after
the second edict of Diocletian (303 a.d.), and his death therefore in
306. There is no other authority for this report, but Harnack con-
siders it in the highest degree probable, and the indirect way in
which Cyril is mentioned certainly argues for its truth. Neither
Eusebius nor Jerome, however, seems to have known anything
about it, and this is very hard to explain. The matter must, in fact,
be left undecided. See Harnack, Zeit des Igjiatius, p. 53 sq.
'■> This Dorotheas and his contemporary, Lucian (mentioned
below, in Bk. VHL chap. 13), are the earliest representatives of the
sound critical method of Biblical exegesis, for which the theological
school at Antioch was distinguished, over against the school of
Alexandria, in which the allegorical method was practiced. From
Bk. VIH. chap. 6 we learn that Dorotheus suffered martyrdom by
hanging early in the Diocletian persecution, so that it must have
been from this emperor, and not from Constantine, that he received
his appointment mentioned just below. Diocletian, before he began
to persecute, had a number of Christian officials in his household,
and treated them with considerable favor.
'" As Closs remarks, the knowledge of Hebrew was by no means
a common thing among the early teachers of the Church; and there-
fore Dorotheus is praised for his acquaintance with it.
It TrpoffaiSeia? rijs Ka.&' 'EAA))i'a5. Compare Bk. VL chap. 18,
§3- .
1- According to the first canon of the Council of Nicsea (see
Hefele, Conciliengcschichte, L p. 376), persons who made them-
selves eunuchs were not to be allowed to become clergymen, nor to
remain clergymen if already such. But this prohibition was not to
apply to persons who were made eunuchs by physicians or by their
persecutors; and the latter part of the canon confines the prohibition
expressly to those who have purposely performed the act upon them-
selves, and hence nothing would have stood in the way of the ad-
vancement of one born a eunuch as Dorotheus was, even had he
lived after the Council of Nicaea, and still less previous to that time.
Closs (followed by Heinichen) is therefore hardly correct in regard-
ing the fact that Dorotheus held office as an exception to the estab-
lished order of things.
'3 i.e. Diocletian.
1* According to Jerome's Chron. Tyrannus became bishop in
the eighteenth year of Diocletian (301-302). If the account of
Cyril's death accepted by Harnack be taken as correct, this date is
at least a year too early. If Cyril was sent to the mines in 303 and
died in 306, Tyrannus may have become bishop in 303, or not until
3i8
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VII. 32.
ceived the episcopate of the parish of Antioch.
In his time occurred the destruction of the
churches.
5 Eusebius,^^ who had come from the city
of Alexandria, ruled the parishes of Laodi-
cea after Socrates.^^ The occasion of his re-
moval thither was the affair of Paul. He went
on this account to Syria, and was restrained
from returning home by those there who were
zealous in divine things. Among our contem-
poraries he was a beautiful example of religion,
as is readily seen from the words of Diony-
6 sius which we have quoted.'' Anatolius^*
was appointed his successor ; one good
man, as they say, following another. He also
was an Alexandrian by birth. In learning and
skill in Greek philosophy, such as arithmetic and
geometry, astronomy, and dialectics in general,
as well as in the theory of physics, he stood first
among the ablest men of our time, and he was
also at the head in rhetorical science. It is re-
ported that for this reason he was requested by
the citizens of Alexandria to establish there a
school of Aristotelian philosophy. ^^
7 They relate of him many other eminent
deeds during the siege of the Pyrucheium -"
306. According to Theodoret, H. E. I. 3, his successor, Vitalis, is
said to have become bishop " after peace had been restored to the
Church," which seems to imply, though it is not directly said, that
I'yraniius himself lived until that time (i.e. until 311). We know
nothing certainly either about his character or the dates of his
episcopate.
i!* This Eusebius, who is mentioned with praise by Dionysius
of Alexandria, in the epistle quoted in chap. 11, above, was a deacon
in the church of Alexandria, who distinguished himself by his good
offices during the persecution of Valerian (a.d. 257), as recorded in
that epistle, and also during the revolt and siege of Alexandria after
the death of Valerian (in 262), as recorded in this chapter. From
the account given here we see that he attended the first, or at least
one of the earlier councils of Antioch in which the case of Paul was
discussed (undoubtedly as the representative of Dionysius, whose
age prevented his attending the first one, as mentioned in chap. 27),
and the Laodiceans, becoming acquainted with him there, compelled
him to accept the bishopric of their church, at that time vacant. As
we see from the account of Anatolius' appointment farther on in
this chapter, he died before the meeting of the council which con-
demned Paul. We know in regard to him only what is told us in
these two chapters. The name Eusebius was a very common one
in the early Church. The Diet, of Christ. Biog: mentions 137
persons of that name belonging to the first eight centuries.
'o Of this Socrates wc know nothing.
1' In chap. II, above.
" Anatolius we are told here was a man of great distinction both
for his learning and for his practical common sense. It is not said
that he held any ecclesiastical office in Alexandria, but farther on
in the chapter we are told that he left that city after the close of the
siege, as Eusebius had done, and that he was ordained assistant
bishop by Thcotecnus, bishop of Caesarea, and was the latter's
colleague in that church for a short time. When on his way to
(.possibly on his return from) the synod of Antioch, which passed
condemnation upon Paul (and at which Theotecnus was also pres-
ent), he passed through Laodicea and was prevailed upon to accept
the bishopric of that city, Eusebius, his old friend, being deceased.
The way in which Laodicea got its two bishops is thus somewhat
remarkable. The character of Anatolius is clear from the account
which follows. Jerome mentions him in his de vir. ill. chap. 73,
and in his Ep. ad Mapiiint (iMignc, No. 70), but adds nothing to
Eusebius' account. Upon his writings, one of which is quoted in
this chapter, see below, notes 21 and 32.
'" T^? '.Vpio-TOTeAou? 6ia5ox^? Trii/ &ia.Tpi.^riv: "A school of the
Aristotelian succession," or " order."
2" The Pyrucheium (the MSS. of Eusebius vary considerably
in their spelling, btit I have .adopted that form which seems best
supported) or Brucheium (as it is called by other ancient writers
and as it is more generally known) was one of the three districts of
Alexandria and was inhabited by the royal family and by the Greeks.
It was the finest and most beautiful quarter of the city, and con-
tained, besides the royal palaces, many magnificent public buildings.
Comprising, as it did, the citadel as well, it was besieged a number
in Alexandria, on account of which he was es-
pecially honored by all those in high office ; but
I will give the following only as an example.
They say that bread had failed the besieged, 8
so that it was more difficult to withstand
the famine than the enemy outside ; but he
being present provided for them in this manner.
As the other part of the city was allied with the
Roman army, and therefore was not under
siege, Anatolius sent for Eusebius, — for he was
still there before his transfer to Syria, and was
among those who were not besieged, and pos-
sessed, moreover, a great reputation and a re-
nowned name which had reached even the
Roman general, — and he informed him of
those who were perishing in the siege from
famine. When he learned this he requested 9
the Roman commander as the greatest pos-
sible favor, to grant safety to deserters from the
enemy. Having obtained his request, he com-
municated it to Anatolius. As soon as he re-
ceived the message he convened the senate of
Alexandria, and at first proposed that all should
come to a reconciliation with the Romans. But
when he perceived that they were angered by
this advice, he said, " But I do not think you
will oppose me, if I counsel you to send the
supernumeraries and those who are in nowise
useful to us, as old women and children and old
men, outside the gates, to go wherever they may
please. For why should we retain for no pur-
pose these who must at any rate soon die ? and
why should we destroy with hunger those who
are crippled and maimed in body, when we
ought to provide only for men and youth, and to
distribute the necessary bread among those who
are needed for the garrison of the city?"
With such arguments he persuaded the as- 10
sembly, and rising first he gave his vote that
the entire multitude, whether of men or women,
who were not needful for the army, should de-
part from the city, because if they remained and
unnecessarily continued in the city, there would be
for them no hope of safety, but they would
perish with famine. As all the others in the 11
senate agreed to this, he saved almost all the
besieged. He provided that first, those belong-
ing to the church, and afterwards, of the others
in the city, those of every age should escape,
not only the classes included in the decree, but,
under cover of these, a multitude of others,
secretly clothed in women's garments ; and
through his management they went out of the
gates by night and escaped to the Roman camp.
of times, and it is imcertain which siege is meant in the present
case. It seems to me most likely that we are to think of the time
of the revolt of yEmilian (see above, chap, ii, note 4), in 260 a.d.,
when the Romans under Theodotus besieged and finally (just how
soon we cannot tell, but the city seems to have been at peace ag.Tin
at least in 264) took the I'rucheium. Valesius and others think of a
later siege under Claudius, but that seems to mc too late (see Tille-
niont, i/ist. ties Emp. III. p. 345 sq.).
VII. 3=.] ANATOLIUS ON THE DATE OF THE PASSOVER.
319
There Eusebius, like a father and physician,
received all of them, wasted away through the
long siege, and restored them by every kind
12 of prudence and care. The church of
Laodicea was honored by two such pastors
in succession, who, in the providence of (lod,
came after the aforesaid war from Alexandria to
that city.
13 Anatolius did not write very many works ;
but in such as have come down to us we
can discern his eloquence and erudition. In
these he states particularly his oj^inions on the
passover. It seems important to give here the
following extracts from them."^
From the Paschal Canons of Anatolius.
14 " There is then in the first year the new
moon of the first month, which is the begin-
ning of every cycle of nineteen years,-^'' on the
twenty- sixth day of the Egyptian Phamenoth ; ^^
but according to the months of the Macedoni-
ans, the twenty-second day of Dystrus,-^ or, as
the Romans would say, the eleventh before
15 the Kalends of April. On the said twenty-
sixth of Phamenoth, the sun is found not
only entered on the first segment,-^ but already
passing through the fourth day in it. They are
accustomed to call this segment the first dodeca-
tomorion,-'' and the equinox, and the beginning
of months, and the head of the cycle, and the
starting-point of the planetary circuit. But they
call the one preceding this the last of months,
and the twelfth segment, and the final dodecato-
morion, and the end of the planetary circuit.
Wherefore we maintain that those who place
the first month in it, and determine by it the
fourteenth of the passover, commit no slight
16 or common blunder. And this is not an
opinion of our own ; but it was known to
the Jews of old, even before Christ, and was
carefully observed by them. This may be
learned from what is said by Philo, Josephus,
-' Anatolius' work on the passover is still extant in a Latin
translation supposed to be the work of Rufinus (though this is
uncertain), and which was first published by .lEgidius liucherius in
his Doctrina Teinportim, Antwerp, 1634. Ideler {Cliron. II.
230) claims that this supposed translation of Anatolius is a work of
the seventh century. But there are the best of reasons for supposing
it an early translation of Anatolius' genuine work (see Zahn,
Forschniigen zur Gesch. des N. T. Kanoiis, III. p. 177-190).
The Latin version is given with the other extant fragments of Ana-
tolius' works in iMigne's Pat. Gr. X. 209-222, 231-236, and an
English translation of the Paschal Canons in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, VI. p. 146-151. Upon this work of Anatolius, see espe-
cially the works of Ideler and Zahn referred to just above.
''■^^ Anatolius was, so far as we know, the first Christian to em-
ploy the old Metonic nineteen-year cycle for the determination of
Easter (see above, chap. 20, note 6).
" Phamenoth was the seventh month of the Alexandrian year,
which was introduced in the reign of Augustus (b.c. 25) and began
on the 29th of August. The month Phamenoth, therefore, began on
the 25th of February, and the 26th of the month corresponded to the
22d of our March.
-•■' Dystrus was the seventh month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded exactly with our March, so that the 22d of Dystrus was
the 22d of March, which according to the Roman method of reckon-
ing was the eleventh day before the Kalends of April.
" i.e. the first of the twelve signs of the Zodiac. On Anatolius'
method of calculation, see Ideler, ibid.
--> &ui&iKaTf]fj.6pi.ov, "twelfth-part."
and Musseus ; ^' and not only by them, but also
by those yet more ancient, the two Agathobuli,"^
surnamed ' Masters,' and the famous Aristobu-
lus,'-'** who was chosen among the seventy inter-
preters of the sacred and divine Hebrew Scrip-
tures ■'^■' by Ptolemy Philadelphus and his father,
and who also dedicated his exegetical books
on the law of Moses to the same kings. These 17
writers, explaining questions in regard to
the Exodus, say that all alike should sacrifice
the passover offerings after the vernal equinox,
in the middle of the first month. ]3ut this
occurs while the sun is passing through the first
segment of the solar, or as some of them have
styled it, the zodiacal circle. Aristobulus adds
that it is necessary for the feast of the passover,
that not only the sun should pass through the
equinoctial segment, but the moon also.
For as there are two equinoctial segments, 18
the vernal and the autumnal, directly oppo-
site each other, and as the day of the passover
was appointed on the fourteenth of the month,
beginning with the evening, the moon will hold
a position diametrically opposite the sun, as
may be seen in full moons ; and the sun will be
in the segment of the vernal equinox, and of
necessity the moon in that of the autumnal.
I know that many other things have been 19
said by them, some of them probable, and
some approaching absolute demonstration, by
which they endeavor to prove that it is alto-
gether necessary to keep the passover and the
feast of unleavened bread after the equinox.
But I refrain from demanding this sort of demon-
stration for matters from which the veil of the
Mosaic law has been removed, so that now at
-" So far as I am aware, Musaeus is known to us only from this
reference of Anatolius.
21 Who the two Agathobuli were we do not know. In the
C/ir(i«. of Eusebius a philosopher Agathobulus is mentioned under
the third year of Hadrian in connection with Plutarch, Sextus, and
CEnomaus. Valesius therefore suspects that Anatolius is in error
in putting the Agathobuli earlier than Philo and Josephus. I must
confess, however, that the connection in which Eusebius mentions
Agathobulus in his Cliron. makes it seem to me very improbable
that he can be referring to either of the Agathobuli whom Anatolius
mentions, and that it is much more likely that the latter were two
closely related Jewish writers (perhaps father and son), who lived,
as Anatolius says, before the time of Philo.
-'* Aristobulus was a well-known Hellenistic philosopher of Alex-
andria, who lived in the time of Ptolemy Philometor in the second
cent\iry B.C. He was thoroughly acquainted with Greek philosophy,
and was in many respects the forerunner of Philo. Anatolius' state-
ment that he wrote in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and conse-
quently his report that he was one of the seventy translators of the
Septuagint (on the legend as to its composition, see Kk. V. chap.
8, note 31) must be looked upon as certainly an error (see Clement
Alex. Strom. I. 22, Eusebius' Prtrp. Evang. IX. 6, and XIII. 12,
and his Chron., year of Abr. 1841). He is mentioned often by
Clement of Alexandria, by Origen {Contra Cels. IV. 51), and by
Eusebius, who in his Pnep. Evang. (VII. 14 and VIII. 10) gives
two fragments of his work (or works) On the Mosaic Law. It is
doubtless to this same work that Anatolius refers in the present
passage. No other fragments of his writings are extant. See espe-
cially Schiirer, Gesch. dcr Juden ini Zeitalter Jesu Christi, II.
p. 760 sq. See also Bk. VI. chap. 23, note 13, above.
2^ On the origin of the LXX, see above, Bk. V. chap. 8,
note 31. The mythical character of the common legend in regard
to its composition is referred to in that note, and that the LXX (or
at least that part of it which comprises the law) was already in
existence before the time of Aristobulus is clear from the latter's
words, quoted by Eusebius, Prcep. Evang. XIII. 12, 1-2 (Hein-
ichen's ed. ) .
320
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Vil. 32.
length with uncovered face we continually behold
as in a glass Christ and the teachings and suf-
ferings of Christ.'* But that with the Hebrews
the first month was near the equinox, the teach-
ings also of the Book of Enoch show."'"
20 The same writer has also left the Insti-
tutes of Arithmetic, in ten books,^- and other
evidences of his experience and proficiency
21 in divine things. Theotecnus,'^ bishop of
Csesarea in Palestine, first ordained him as
bishop, designing to make him his successor
in his own parish after his death. And for a
short time both of them presided over the same
church.^ But the synod which was held to
consider Paul's case ^ called him to Antioch,
and as he passed through the city of Laodicea,
Eusebius being dead, he was detained by
22 the brethren there. And after Anatolius
had departed this hfe, the last bishop of
that parish before the persecution was Stephen,"*'
who was admired by many for his knowledge
of philosophy and other Greek learning. But
he was not equally devoted to the divine faith,
as the progress of the persecution manifested ;
for it showed that he was a cowardly and un-
manly dissembler rather than a true philoso-
23 pher. But this did not seriously injure the
church, for Theodotus^' restored their af-
M Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 18.
21 The Book of Enoch is one of the so-called Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, which was widely used in the ancient Church, and
is quoted in the Epistle of Jude, 14 sq. The work disappeared after
about the fifth century, and was supposed to have perished (with
the exception of a few fragments) until in 1773 it was discovered
entire in an Ethiopic Bible, and in 1838 was published in Ethiopic
by Lawrence, who in 1821 had already translated it into English.
Dilhnann also published the Ethiopic te.xt in 1851, and in 1853 a
German translation with commentary. Dillmann's edition of the
original entirely supersedes that of Lawrence, and his translation
and commentary still form the standard work upon the subject.
More recently it has been re-translated into English and discussed
by George H. Schodde: The Book 0/ Eiiocli, translated, itn'th In-
troduction and Notes, Andover, 1882. The literature on the book of
Enoch is very extensive. See especially Schodde's work, the German
translation of Dillmann, Schiirer's Gesch. der Juden, IL p. 616 sq.,
and Lipsius' article, Enoch, Apocryphal Book of, in the Diet, of
Christ. Biog.
The teachings of the book to which Anatolius refers are found
in the seventy-second chapter (Schodde's ed. p. 179 sq.), which
contains a detailed description of the course of the sun during the
various months of the year.
22 'AptS/oiT/TiKa? tio-aywya?. A few fragments of this work are
given in the Thcologjtniena Arithnicticce (Paris, 1543), p. 9, 16,
24. 34. 56.64 (according to Fabricius), and by Fabricius in his Bibl.
Gr. IL 275-277 (ed. Harles, IIL 462 sq.).
^ On Thcotccnus, see chap. 14, note 9.
^ On the custom of appointing assistant bishops, see Bk. VL
chap. II, note i.
so Eusebius doubtless refers here to the final council at which
Paul w.as condemned, and which has been already mentioned in
chaps. 29 and 30 (on its date, see chap. 29, note 1). That it is this
particular council to which he refers is implied in the way in which
It is spoken of, — as if referring to the well-known synod, of which
so much has been said, — and still further by the fact that Eu.sebius,
who h.ad attended the first one (.see above, § 5), and had then become
bishop of Laodicea, was already dead.
■^ Of Stephen, bishop of Laodicea, we know only what Eusebius
tells us in this passage.
*' Theodotus, of whom Eusebius speaks in such high terms in
this passage, was bishop of Laodicea for a great many years, and
played a prominent part in the Arian controversy, being one of the
most zealous supporters of the Arian cause (.see Theodorct, H. E.
\. 5 and V. 7, and Athanasius de Synodis Ariin. et Selene. \. 17).
He was present at the Council of Nicaea (Labbe, Concil. IL 51),
and took part in the council which deposed Enstathius of Antioch,
in 330 (according to Theodoret, //. E. L 21, whose account, though
unreliable, is very likely correct so far as its list of bishops is con-
cerned; on the council, see also p. 21, above). He was already
fairs, being straightway made bishop of that
parish by God himself, the Saviour of all. He
justified by his deeds both his lordly name "'^
and his office of bishop. For he excelled in
the medical art for bodies, and in the healing art
for souls. Nor did any other man equal him in
kindness, sincerity, sympathy, and zeal in help-
ing such as needed his aid. He was also greatly
devoted to divine learning. Such an one was
he.
In Csesarea in Palestine, Agapius "'" sue- 24
ceeded Theotecnus, who had most zealously
performed the duties of his episcopate. Him
too we know to have labored diligently, and to
have manifested most genuine providence in his
oversight of the people, particularly caring
for all the poor with liberal hand. In his 25
time we became acquainted with Pamphi-
lus,''" that most eloquent man, of truly philo-
sophical life, who was esteemed worthy of the
office of presbyter in that parish. It would be
no small matter to show what sort of a man he
was and whence he came. But we have de-
dead in the year 341 ; for his successor, George, was present at the
Council of Antioch (/« Encceniis) , which was held in that year (see
Sozomen, H. E. IIL 5, and cf. Hefele, Coneiliengesch. 1. p. 502 sq.).
We have no information that he was present at the Council of Tyre,
in 335 (as is incorrectly stated by Labbe, who confounds Theodore
of Heraclea with Theodotus; see Theodoret, H. E. I. 28). It is,
therefore, possible that he was dead at that time, though his absence
of course does not prove it. According to Socrates, H. E. IL 46,
and Sozomen, H. E. VI. 25, Theodotus had trouble with the two
Apolinarii, father and son, who resided at Antioch. We do not
know the date of the younger Apolinarius' birth (the appro.ximate
date, 335, given in the article in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. is a gross
error), but we can hardly put it much earlier than 320, and therefore
as he was a reader in the church, according to Socrates (Sozomen
calls him only a youth) in the time of Theodotus, it seems best to
put the death of the latter as late as possible, perhaps well on
toward 340. The date of his accession is unknown to us; but as
Eusebius says that he became bishop straightw.ay after the fall of
Stephen, we cannot well put his accession later than 311 ; so that he
held office in all probability some thirty years. Venables' article on
Theodotus, in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. is a tissue of errors, caused
by identifying Theodotus with Theodore of Heraclea (an error com-
mitted by Labbe before him) and with another Theodotus, present
at the Council ofSeleucia, in 359 (Athanasius, ibid. I. 12; cf. Hefele,
Coneiliengesch. I. p. 713).
38 ©eoiiioTo?: "God-given."
^^ Of Agapius we know only what Eusebius tells us in this pas-
sage. He was the immediate predecessor of Eusebius in the church
of Caesarea, and probably survived the persecution, but not for many
years (see above, p. 10 sq.). Eu.sebius speaks of him in the past
tense, so that he was clearly already dead at the time this part of the
History was written (i.e. probably in 313; see .above, p. 45).
"• Pamphilus, a presbyter of Caesarea, was Eusebiu.s' teacher and
most intimate friend, and after his death Eusebius showed his affec-
tion and respect for him by adopting his name, styling himself
Eusebius Pamphili. He pursued his studies in Alexandria (accord-
ing to Photius, under Pierius, more probably under Achillas, the
head of the catechetical school there; see below, notes 42 and 53),
and conceived an unbounded admiration for Origen, the great light
of that school, which he never lost. Pamphilus is chietly celebrated
for the library which he collected at Caesarea and to which Eusebius
owes a large part of the materials of his history. Jerome also made
extensive use of it. It was especially rich in copies of the Scripture,
of commentaries upon it, and of Ongen's works (sec above, p. 38).
He wrote very little, devoting himself chielly to the study of Scrip-
ture, and to the transcription of MSS. of it and of the works of
Origen. During the last two years of his life, however, while in
prison, he wrote with the assistance of Eusebius a Defense of
Origen in five books, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixtn
(see above, p. 36 sq.). During the persecution under Maximinus,
he was thrown into prison by Urbanus, prefect of Caisarea, in 307,
and after remaining two years in close confinement, cheered by the
companionship of Eusebius, he was put to death by Kirmilian, the
successor of Urbanus, in 300, as recorded below, in the Martyrs of
I'alestine, chap. 11 (see above, p. 9). The Life of Pamphilus
which Eusebius wrote is no longer extant (see above, p. 28). On
Tamphilus, sec Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 75, and Photius, Cod.
118. See also the present volume, p. c^-t) passim.
VII. 32.]
PIERIUS, MELETIUS AND OTHERS.
321
scribed, in our special work concerning him/^
all the particulars of his life, and of the school
which he established, and the trials which he
endured in many confessions during the perse-
cution, and the crown of martyrdom with which
he was finally honored. But of all that were
there he was indeed the most admirable.
26 Among those nearest our times, we have
known Pierius,^- of the presbyters in Alex-
andria, and Meletius,'*''' bishop of the
27 churches in Pontus, — rarest of men. The
first was distinguished for his life of ex-
treme poverty and his philosopliic learning, and
was exceedingly diligent in the contemplation
and exposition of divine things, and in public
discourses in the church. Meletius, whom the
learned called the " honey of Attica," ■" was a
man whom every one would describe as most
accomplished in all kinds of learning ; and it
" On Eusebius' Life of Paviphihts, see above, p. 28 sq.
^- According to Jerome {de vir. ill. j6) Pierius was a presbyter
and a teacher in Alexandria under the emperors Cams and Diocle-
tian, while Theonas was bishop there (see note 51, below), on
account of the elegance of his writings was called " the younger
Origen," was skilled, moreover, in dialectics and rhetoric, lived
an ascetic life, and passed his later years, after the persecution, in
Rome. According to Photius, Cod. 118, he was at the head of the
catechetical school of Alexandria, was the teacher of Pamphilus,
and finally suffered martyrdom. Photius may be correct in the
former statements. The last statement is at variance with Jerome's
distinct report, which in the present instance at least is to be de-
cidedly preferred to that of Photius. The first statement also is
subject to grave doubt, for according to Eusebius (§ 30, below),
Achillas, who was made presbyter at the same time as Pierius, and
who lived until after the persecution (when he became bishop), was
principal of the school. Eusebius' statement must be accepted as
correct, and in that case it is difficult to believe the report of Photius,
both on account of Eusebius' silence in regard to Pierius' connec-
tion with the school, and also because if Pierius was principal of
the school, he must apparently have given it up while he was still in
Alexandria, or must have left the city earlier than Jerome says.
It is more probable that Photius' report is false and rests upon a
combination of the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome. If both the
first and third statements of Photius are incorrect, little faith can be
placed on the second, which may be true, or which may be simply
a combination of the known fact that Pamphilus studied in Alexan-
dria with the supposed fact that Pierius was the principal of the
catechetical school while he was there. It is quite as probable that
Pamphilus studied with Achillas. Jerome tells us that a number of
works (t racial It mn) by Pierius were extant in his day, among
them a long homily on Hosea (cf. also Jerome's Cominetii. in
Osee, frologits) . In his second epistle to Pammachius (Migne,
No. 49) Jerome refers also to Pierius' commentary on First Cor-
inthians, and quotes from it the words, " In saying this Paul openly
preaches celibacy." Photius, Cod. iig, mentions a work in twelve
books, whose title he does not name, but in which he tells us
Pierius had uttered some dangerous sentiments in regard to the
Spirit, pronouncing him inferior to the Father and the Son. This
work contained, according to Photius, a book on Luke's Gospel,
and another on the passover, and on Hosea. Pierius' writings are
no longer extant. The passages from Jerome's epistle to Pam-
machius and from Photius, Cod. 119, are given, with notes, by
Routh, Rel. Sac. 2d ed. III. 429 sq., and an English translation in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 157. Pierius was evidently a
" younger Origen " in his theology as well as in his literary charac-
ter, as we can gather from Photius' account of him (cf. Harnack's
Dogmengesch. I. p. 640).
^ A Sleletius, bishop of Sabastopolis, is mentioned by Philostor-
gius {H. E. 1.8) as in attendance upon the Council of Nicsea, and
it is commonly assumed that this is the same one referred to here by
Eusebius. But Eusebius' words seem to me to imply clearly that
the Meletius of whom he speaks was already dead at the time he
wrote; and, therefore, if we suppose that Philostorgius is referring
to the same man, we must conclude that he was mistaken in his
statement, possibly confounding him with the later Meletius of
Sebaste, afterwards of Antioch. Our Meletius is, however, doubt-
less to be identified with the orthodox Meletius mentioned in terms
of praise by Athanasius, in his Ep. ad Episc. ALg. § 8, and by
Basil in his De Spir. Sand. chap. 29, § 74. It is suggested by
Stroth that Eusebius was a pupil of Meletius during the time that
the latter was in Palestine, but this is not implied in Eusebius' words
(see above, p. 5).
^ TO /neAt T^s 'Attik))?, in allusion to Meletius' name.
VOL. I. 1
would be impossible to admire sufficiently his
rhetorical skill. It might be said that he pos-
sessed this by nature ; but who could surpass
the excellence of his great experience and
erudition in other respects? For in all 28
branches of knowledge had you undertaken
to try him even once, you would have said that
he was the most skillful and learned. More-
over, the virtues of his life were not less remark-
able. We observed him well in the time of the
persecution, when for seven full years he was
escaping from its fury in the regions of Pales-
tine.
Zambdas'" received the episcopate of the 29
church of Jerusalem after the bishop Hyme-
nseus, whom we mentioned a little above.'*" He
died in a short time, and Hermon,^' the last
before the persecution in our day, succeeded to
the apostolic chair, which has been pre-
served there until the present time.''* In 30
Alexandria, Maximus,^^ who, after the death
of Dionysius,^" had been bishop for eighteen
years, was succeeded by Theonas.^^ In his
time Achillas,^- who had been appointed a pres-
*^' The majority of the MSS. and editors read Za^i^Sa?. A few
MSS. followed by Laemmer read Za^a6a5, and a few others with
Rufinus, both versions of the Chron. and Nicephorus Z(i/36a?. We
know nothing about this bishop, except what is told us here and in
the Chron., where he is called the thirty-eighth bishop (Jerome calls
him the thirty-seventh, but incorrectly according to his own list),
and is said to have entered upon his office in the fifteenth year of
Diocletian (Armen. fourteenth), i.e. in 298. Hermon succeeded him
three years later, according to Jerome; two years later, according
to the Armenian version.
*'' In chap. 14. See note 11 on that chapter.
*~ According to Jerome's version of the Chron., Hermon became
bishop in the eighteenth year of Diocletian, a.d. 301 ; according to
the Armenian, in the sixteenth year. The accession of his successol
Macharius is put by Jerome in the eighth year of Constantino,
A.D. 312. Eusebius' words seem to imply that Hermon was still
bishop at the time he was writing, though it is not certain that he
means to say that. Jerome's date may be incorrect, but is probably
not far out of the way. Of Hermon himself we know nothing more.
^^ See above, chap. ig.
*'■> On Maximus, see chap. 28, note 10.
^ On Dionysius the Great, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40,
note I.
''' According to Jerome's Chron., Theonas became bishop in the
sixth year of Probus (281 a.d.) ; according to the Armenian, in
the first year of Numerian and Carinus, i.e. a year later. Both
agree with the History in assigning nineteen years to his epis-
copate. An interesting and admirable epistle is extant addressed
to Lucian, the chief chamberlain of the emperor, and containing
advice in regard to the duties of his position, which is commonly
and without doubt correctly ascribed to Theonas. The name of
the emperor is not given, but all of the circumstances point to
Diocletian, who had a number of Christians in influential posi-
tions in his household during the earlier years of his reign. The
epistle, which is in Latin (according to some a translation of a Greek
original), is given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 439-445, and an Eng-
lish translation is contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI.
p. 15S-161.
^'^ The character given to Achillas by Eusebius is confirmed by
Athanasius, who calls him "the great Achillas" (in his Epistle to
the Bishops of Egypt, § 23). He succeeded Peter as bishop of
Alexandria (Epiphanius makes him the successor of Alexander, but
wrongly, for the testimony of Athanasius, to say nothing of Jerome,
Socrates, and other writers, is decisive on this point; see Athanasius'
Apology against the Arians, §§ 11 and 59, and Epist. to the Bish-
ops of Egypt, § 23), but our authorities differ as to the date of his
accession and the length of his episcopate. Eusebius, in this chapter,
§ 31, puts the death of Peter in the ninth year of the persecution
311-312), and with this Jerome agrees in his Chron., and there can
be no doubt as to the correctness of the report. But afterwards, quite
inconsistently (unless it be supposed that Achillas became bishop
before Peter's death, which, in the face of Eusebius' silence on the
subject, is very improbable), Jerome puts the accession of Achillas
into the fifth year of Constantine, a.d. 309. Jerome commits an-
other error in putting the accession of his successor, Alexander,
in the sixteenth year of Constantine (a.d. 320) ; for Alexander's
322
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[vn. 32.
byter in Alexandria at the same time with
Pierius, became celebrated. He was placed
over the school of the sacred faith/^ and exhib-
ited fruits of philosophy most rare and inferior
to none, and conduct genuinely evangeli-
31 cal. After Theonas had held the office
for nineteen years, Peter ^* received the
episcopate in Alexandria, and was very eminent
among them for twelve entire years. Of these
he governed the church less than three years
before the persecution, and for the remainder of
his life he subjected himself to a more rigid
discipline and cared in no secret manner for the
general interest of the churches. On this ac-
count he was beheaded in the ninth year of the
persecution, and was adorned with the crown of
martyrdom.
controversy with Arius (see above, p. 11 sq.) can hardly have
broken out later than 31S or 319, and it would appear that Alexan-
der had been bishop already some time when that took place. Theo-
doret (//. E. I. 2) states that Achillas ruled the church but a short
time, and with him agrees Epiphanius {Hi^y. LXIX. 11), who
says that he held office but three months. The casual way in which
Achillas is spoken of in all our sources, most of which mention him
only in passing from Peter to Alexander, would seem to confirm
Theodoret's report, and Alexander's accession may, therefore, be
put not long after 311.
^ T)j? iepas TTKTTews to SiSacKaAeioi'. Eusebius refers here to
the famous catechetical school of Alexandria (upon which, see
above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2). The appointment of Achillas to
the principalship of this school would seem to exclude Pierius, who
is said by Photius to have been at the head of it (see above, note 42) .
''* Peter is mentioned again in Bk. VIII. chap. 13, and in Bk. IX.
chap. 6, and both times in the highest terms. In the latter passage
his death is said to have taken place by order of Maximinus, quite
unexpectedly and without any reason. This was in the ninth year
of the persecution, as we learn from the present passage (i.e. Feb.
311 to Feb. 312, or according to Eusebius' own reckoning. Mar. or
Apr. 311 to Mar. or Apr. 312; see below Bk. VII. chap. 2, note o),
and evidently after the publication of the toleration edict of Galerius,
when the Christians were not looking for any further molestation
Having written out in these books the 32
account of the successions from the birth
of our Saviour to the destruction of the places
of worship, — a period of three hundred and
five years,^^ — permit me to pass on to the con-
tests of those who, in our day, have heroically
fought for religion, and to leave in writing, for
the information of posterity, the extent and the
magnitude of those conflicts.
(see below, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 2). According to this passage,
Peter was bishop less than three years before the outbreak of the
persecution, and hence he cannot have become bishop before the
spring of 300. On the other hand since he died as early as the
spring of 312, and was bishop twelve years he must have become
bishop not later than the spring of 300, and he must have died not
long before the spring of 312, and even then, if Eusebius' other state-
ments are exact, it is impossible to make his episcopate fully twelve
years in length. The date thus obtained for his accession is in
accord with the dates given for the episcopate of his predecessor
Theonas (see above, note 51). Jerome puts his accession in the
nineteenth year of Diocletian (a.d. 302), but this is at variance
with his own figures in connection with Theonas, and is plainly
incorrect.
Fourteen Cations, containing detailed directions in regard to the
lapsed were drawn up by Peter in 306 (see the opening sentence of
the first canon), and are still extant. They are published in all col-
lections of canons and also in numerous other works. See espe-
cially Routh's Rcl. Sac. IV. p. 23 sq. An English translation is
given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 269-278. lirief frag-
ments of other works — On the Passover, On the Godlicad, On
the Advent 0/ the Saviour, On the Soul, and the beginning of
an epistle addressed to the Alexandrians — are given by Roiith,
ibid. p. 45 sq. These fragments, together with a few others of
doubtful origin, given by Gallandius and Mai, are translated in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ibid. p. 280-283. I" '''^ same volume
(p. 261-268) are given The Genuine Acts of Peter, containing an
account of his life and martyrdom. These, however, are spurious
and historically quite worthless.
Peter seems, to judge from the extant fragments, to have been in
the main an Origcnist, but to have departed in some important
respects from the teachings of Origen, especially on the subject of
anthropology (cf. Harnack's Doginengesch. 1. p. 644). The fa-
mous Sleletian schism took its rise during the episcopate of Peter
(see Athanasius, Apology against the Arians, § 59).
'''' Diocletian's edict decreeing the demolition of the churches
was published in February, 303. See Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3.
BOOK VIII.
INTRODUCTION.
As we have described in seven books the
events from the time of the apostles/ we think
it proper in this eighth book to record for the
information of posterity a few of the most im-
portant occurrences of our own times, which are
worthy of permanent record. Our account will
begin at this point.
CHAPTER I.
The Events which preceded the Persecution in
our Times.
1 It is beyond our ability to describe in a
suitable manner the extent and nature of
the glory and freedom with which the word of
piety toward the God of the universe, proclaimed
to the world through Christ, was honored among
all men, both Greeks and barbarians, be-
2 fore the persecution in our day. The favor
shown our people by the rulers might be
adduced as evidence; as they committed to
them the government of provinces,^ and on ac-
count of the great friendship which they enter-
tained toward their doctrine, released them
3 from anxiety in regard to sacrificing. Why
need I speak of those in the royal palaces,
and of the rulers over all, who allowed the
members of their households, wives ^ and chil-
dren and servants, to speak openly before them
for the Divine word and life, and suffered them
almost to boast of the freedom of their faith?
Indeed they esteemed them highly, and
4 preferred them to their fellow-servants. Such
an one was that Dorotheus,^ the most de-
1 Literally, "the succession of the apostles" (Trji/ tuiv anoaio-
1 Tas Tuv iSviiv Tjyefxoi'ias.
2 ya/ieTttt?. Prisca, the wife, and Valeria, the daughter, of Dio-
cletian, and the wife of Galerius, were very friendly to the Christians,
and indeed there can belittle doubt that they were themselves Chris-
tians, or at least catechumens, though they kept the fact secret
and sacrificed to the gods (Lactantius, Dc Jiiort. />crs. 15) when
all of Diocletian's household were required to do so, after the second
conflagration in the palace (see M^iSO'o's Pi-rsecniion of Diocletian ,
p. 40, 121 sq.). It is probable in the present case that Eusebius is
thinking not simply of the wives of Diocletian and Galerius, but
also of all the women and children connected in any way with the
imperial household.
3 Of this Dorotheus we know only what is told us here and in
chap. 6, below, where it is reported that he was put to death by
strangling. It might be thought at first sight that he is to be iden-
tified with the Dorotheus mentioned above in Bk. VII. chap. 32, for
both lived at the same time, and the fact that the Dorotheus men-
tioned there was a eunuch would fit him for a prominent station in
voted and foithful to them of all, and on this
account especially honored by them among
those who held the most honorable offices and
governments. With him was the celebrated
Gorgonius,* and as many as had been esteemed
worthy of the same distinction on account of
the word of God. And one could see the 5
rulers in every church accorded the great-
est favor ^ by all officers and governors.
But how can any one describe those vast
assemblies, and the multitude that crowded
together in every city, and the famous gather-
ings in the houses of prayer ; on whose ac-
count not being satisfied with the ancient
buildings they erected from the foundation
large churches in all the cities? No envy 6
hindered the progress of these affairs
which advanced gradually, and grew and
increased day by day. Nor could any evil
demon slander them or hinder them through
human counsels, so long as the divine and heav-
enly hand watched over and guarded his own
people as worthy.
But when on account of the abundant 7
freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and
envied and reviled each other, and were almost,
as it were, taking up arms against one another,
rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and
people forming parties against people, and mon-
strous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the
greatest height of wickedness, the divine judg-
ment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while
the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently
and moderately harassed the episcopacy.
This persecution began with the brethren 8
in the army. But as if without sensibility,
we were not eager to make the Deity favorable
and propitious ; and some, like atheists, thought
that our affairs were unheeded and ungovemed ;
and thus we added one wickedness to another.
the emperor's household. At the same time he is said by Eusebius
to have been made superintendent of the purple dye house at Tyre,
and nothing is said either as to his connection with the household of
the emperor or as to his martyrdom; nor is the Dorotheus men-
tioned in this chapter said to have been a presbyter. In fact, inas-
much as Eusebius gives no hint of the identity of the two men,
we must conclude that they were different persons in spite of the
similarity of their circumstances.
• Of Gorgonius, who is mentioned also in chap. 6, we know only
that he was one of the imperial household, and that he was stranglecl,
in company with Dorotheus and others, in consequence of the fires
in the Nicomedian palace. See chap. 6, note 3.
^ a.-nohoxh%. A few MSS., followed by Stephanus, Valesius,
Stroth, Burton, and most translators, add the words Kai 0€paireiat
Kai Se^iuiaeuii oil T^s Tvxovarr)<;, but the weight of MS. authority ia
against thcin, and they are omitted by the majority of editors.
Y 2
324
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VIII. I
And those esteemed our shepherds, casting
aside the bond of piety, were excited to con-
flicts with one another, and did nothing else
than heap up strifes and threats and jealousy
and enmity and hatred toward each other, like
tyrants eagerly endeavoring to assert their power.
Then, truly, according to the word of Jeremiah,
" The Lord in his wrath darkened the daughter
of Zion, and cast down the glory of Israel from
heaven to earth, and remembered not his foot-
stool in the day of his anger. The Lord also
overwhelmed all the beautiful things of Is-
rael, and threw down all his strongholds."^
9 And according to what was foretold in the
Psalms : " He has made void the covenant
of his servant, and profaned his sanctuary to the
earth, — in the destruction of the churches, —
and has thrown down all his strongholds, and
has made his fortresses cowardice. All that
pass by have plundered the multitude of the
people ; and he has become besides a reproach
to his neighbors. For he has exalted the right
hand of his enemies, and has turned back the
help of his sword, and has not taken his part in
the war. But he has deprived him of purifica-
tion, and has cast his throne to the ground. He
has shortened the days of his time, and besides
all, has poured out shame upon him."^
CHAPTER 11.
Tlie Destruction of the CJmrches.
1 All these things were fulfilled in us, when
we saw with our own eyes the houses of
prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and
the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to
the flames in the midst of the market-places, and
the shepherds of the churches basely hidden
here and there, and some of them captured
ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies.
When also, according to another prophetic word,
" Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and
he caused them to wander in an untrodden and
pathless way." ^
2 But it is not our place to describe the sad
misfortunes which finally came upon them,
as we do not think it proper, moreover, to
record their divisions and unnatural conduct to
each other before the persecution. Wherefore
we have decided to relate nothing concerning
them except the things in which we can vin-
3 dicate the Divine judgment. Hence we
shall not mention those who were shaken
by the persecution, nor those who in everything
pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and
by their own will were sunk in the depths of the
" Lam. ii. i, 2.
' Ps. cvii. 40.
Ps. Ixxxix. 39-45.
flood. But we shall introduce into this history
in general only those events which may be use-
ful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.^
Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the
sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine
Word.
It was in the nineteenth year of the reign 4
of Diocletian,^ in the month Dystrus,* called
March by the Romans, when the feast of the
Saviour's passion was near at hand,^ that royal
edicts were published everywhere, commanding
that the churches be leveled to the ground and
the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and order-
ing that those who held places of honor be
degraded, and that the household servants, if
they persisted in the profession of Christianity,
be deprived of freedom.''
^ Gibbon uses this passage as the basis for his severe attack upon
the honesty of Eusebius {Decline and Fall, chap. i6), but he has
certainly done our author injustice (cf. the remarks made on p.
49, above).
3 Diocletian began to reign Sept. 17, 284, and therefore his nine-
teenth year extended from Sept. 17, 302, to Sept. 16, 303. Eusebius
is in agreement vv'ith all our authorities in assigning this year for the
beginning of the persecution, and is certainly correct. In regard to
the month, however, he is not so accurate. Lactantius, who was in
Nicomedia at the time of the beginning of the persecution, and cer-
tainly much better informed than Eusebius in regard to the details,
states distinctly (in his De vtort. pers. chap. 12) that the festival of
the god Terminus, the seventh day before the Kalends of March
(i.e. Feb. 23), was chosen by the emperors for the opening of the
persecution, and there is no reason for doubting his exact statement.
At the beginning of the Martyrs of Palestine (p. 342, below) the
month Xanthicus (April) is given as the date, but this is still further
out of the way. It was probably March or even April before the
edicts were published in many parts of the empire, and Eusebius
may have been misled by that fact, not knowing the exact date of
their publication in Nicomedia itself. We learn from Lactantius
that on February 23d the great church of Nicomedia, together with
the copies of Scripture found in it, was destroyed by order of the
emperors, but that the edict of which Eusebius .speaks just below
was not issued imtil the following d.ay. For a discussion of the
causes which led to the persecution of Diocletian see below, p. 397.
* Auo-Tpo?, the seventh month of the Macedonian year, corre-
sponding to our March. See the table on p. 403, below.
^ Valesius (nd locitni) states, on the authority of Scaliger and
Petavius, that Easter fell on April i8th in the year 303. I have not
attempted to verify the statement.
I" This is the famous First Edict of Diocletian, which is no longer
extant, and the terms of which therefore have to be gathered from
the accounts of Eusebius and Lactantius. The interpretation of the
edict has caused a vast deal of trouble. It is discussed very fully by
Mason in his important work, Tlie I'crsecution of Dioclctia7t,
p. 105 sq. and p. 343 sq. As he remarks, Lactantuis simply de-
scribes the edict in a general way, while Eusebius gives an accurate
statement of its substance, even reproducing its language in part.
The first provision (that the churches be leveled to the ground) is
simply a carrying out of the old principle, that it was unlawful for
the Christians to hold assemblies, imder a new form. T he second
provision, directed against the sacred books, was entirely new, and
was a very shrewd move, revealing at the .same time an appre-
ciation on the part of the authors of the persecution of the important
part which the Scriptures occupied in the Christian Church. Tlie
third provision, as Mason has pointed out, is a substantial reproduc-
tion of a part of the edict of Valerian, and was evidently con-
sciously based upon that edict. (ITpon the varialicms fr<im the
earlier edict, sec Mason, p. 115 sq.) It is notice.ible that not tor-
ture nor death is decreed, but only civil degradation. This degrada-
tion, as can be seen from a comparison with the description of Lac-
tantius {ibid, ch.ap. 13) and with the edict of Valerian (given in
Cyi)rian's Epistle to Successus, Ep. No. 81, al. 80), consisted, in
the case of those who held public office (Tt/irj? f/rnAijMMO'O*'?), in
the loss of rank and also of citizenship; that is, they fell through
two grades, as is pointed out by Mason. In the interpretation of the
fourth provision, however. Mason does not seem to me to have been
so successful. The last clause runs tou? 6e iv oi/cfTiai?, fi i-ni.\i.i-
voL^v Tr^ ToO \inmiavi(T}i.ov Trpoftiaei t'Aei'^epi'a^ aTfoaaOai, The
difficult point is the interpretation of the Toi/? er oikctioi?. The
words usually mean " household slaves," and arc commonly so
translated in this passage. I'ut, as Valesius remarks, there is cer-
tainly no sense then in deprivnig them of freedom (tAevScpia) which
they do not possess. Valesius consequently translates filcbiii,
"common people," and Mason argues at length for a similar inter-
pret.ilioti ^'>. -><< «n.^, looking upon these persims as common peo-
ple, or inili\ id.iais in |iriv.ite liie, as contrasted with the officials
VIII. 3.]
BEGINNINGS OF THE GREAT PERSECUTION.
325
5 Such was the first edict against us. But
not long after, other decrees were issued,
commanding that all the rulers of the churches
in every place be first thrown into prison,^ and
mentioned in the previous clause. The only objection, but in my
opinion a fatal objection, to this attractive interpretation is tliat it
gives the phrase oi ei- oiKtrcaiy a wider meaning than can legiti-
mately be applied to it. Mason remarks: "The word oixeTta
means, and is here a translation o{,faiHilia ; oi iv oifceTiais means
ii qjii lit famiiiis sunt, — not graceful Latin certainly, but plainly
signifying ' those who live in private households.' Now in private
households there lived not only slaves, thank goodness, but free
men too, both as masters and as servants; therefore in the phrase
Tous iv oiKCTcai? itself there is nothing which forbids the paraphrase
' private persons.' " P>ut I submit that to use so clumsy a phrase,
so luinecessary a circumlocution, to designate simply private people
in genera! — oi ttoAAoi — would be the height of absurdity. The in-
terpretation of Stroth (which is approved by Heinichen) seems to me
much more satisfactory. He remarks: " Das Edict war zunachst
nur gegen zwei Klasscn von Leuten gerichtet, einmal gegen die,
welche in kaiserlichen yKmtern standen, und dann gegen die freien
oder freigelassencn Christen, welche bei den Kaisern oder ihren
Hofleuten und Statthaltcrn in Diensten standen, und zu ihrem Haus-
gesinde gehijrten." This seems to me more satisfactory, both on
verbid and historical grounds. The words oi iv oiKeriais certainly
cannot, in the present case, mean " household slaves," but they can
mean servants, attendants, or other persons at court, or in the
households of provincial officials, who did not hold rank as offi-
cials, but at the same time were freemen born, or freedmen, and
thus in a different condition from slaves. Such persons would natu-
rally be reduced to slavery if degraded at all, and it is easier to think
of their reduction to slavery than of that of the entire mass of
Christians not in public office. Still further, this proposition finds
support in the edict of Valerian, in which this class of people is es-
pecially mentioned. And finally, it is, in my opinion, much more
natural to suppose that this edict (whose purpose I shall discuss on
p. 399) was confined to persons who were in some way connected
with official life, — either as chiefs or assistants or servants, — and
therefore in a position peculiarly fitted for the formation of plots
against the government, than that it was directed against Christians
indiscriminately. The grouping together of the two classes seems
to me very natural ; and the omission of any specific reference to
bishops and other church officers, who are mentioned in the second
edict, is thus fully explained, as it cannot be adequately explained,
in my opinion, on any other ground.
"' As we learn from chap. 6, § 8, the edict commanding the
church officers to be seized and thrown into prison followed popular
uprisings in Melitene and Syria, and if Eusebius is correct, was
caused by those outbreaks. Evidently the Christians were held in
some way responsible for those rebellious outbursts (possibly they
were a direct consequence of the first edict), and the natural result
of them must have been to make Diocletian realize, as he had not
realized before, that the e.xistence of such a society as the Christian
Church within the empire — demanding as it did supreme allegiance
from its members — was a menace to the state. It was therefore not
strange that what began as a purely political thing, as an attempt
to break up a supposed treasonable plot formed by certain Christian
officials, should speedily develop into a religious persecution. The
first step in such a persecution would naturally be the seizure of all
church officers (see below, p. 397 sq.).
The decrees of which Eusebius speaks in this paragraph are evi-
dently to be identified with the one mentioned in chap. 6, § 8. This
being so, it is clear that Eusebius' account can lay no claims to
chronological order. This must be remembered, or we shall fall
into repeated difficulties in reading this eighth book. We are obliged
to arrange the order of events for ourselves, for his account is quite
desultory, and devoid both of logical and chronological sequence.
The decrees or writings (ypaji/aara) mentioned in this paragraph con-
stituted really but one edict (cf. chap. 6, § 8) , which is known to us as
the Second Edict of Diocletian. Its date cannot be determined with
exactness, for, as Mason remarks, it may have been issued at any
time between February and November; but it was probably pub-
lished not many months after the first, inasmuch as it was a result
of disturbances which arose in consequence of the first. Mason is
inclined to place it in March, within a month after the issue of the
first, but that seems to me a little too early. In issuing the edict
Diocletian followed the example of Valerian in part, and yet only in
part; for instead of commanding that the church officers be slain, he
commanded only that they be seized. He evidently believed that
he could accomplish his purpose best by getting the leading men of
the church into his hands and holding them as hostages, while deny-
ing them the glory of martyrdom (cf. Mason, p. 132 sq.). The per-
sons affected by the edict, according to Eusebius, were " all the
riders of the churches " (tous tui' eKKATjo-ioji' 7rpot6povs Troii'Ta?; cf.
also Mart. Pal. Introd., § 2). In chap. 6, § 8, he says toOs -navTo.-
Xoae TMV iKK\-q(Tiiov 7rpo6o-Tu)T09. These words would seem to
imply that only the bishops were intended, but we learn from Lac-
tantius {De mort.pers. 15) that presbyters and other officers {/>res-
bytcri ac mitiistri) were included, and this is confirmed, as ^lason
remarks (p. 133, note), by the sequel. We must therefore take the
words used by Eusebius in the general sense of " church officers."
According to Lactantius, their families suffered with them {cum
omnibus suis deducebantur), but Eusebius says nothing of that.
afterwards by every artifice be compelled to
sacrifice."
CHAPTER III.
The Nature of the Conflicts endured in the
Persecution.
Then truly a great many rulers of the 1
churches eagerly endured terrible sufferings,
and furnished examples of noble conflicts. But
a multitude of others,^ benumbed in spirit by
fear, were easily weakened at the first onset.
Of the rest each one endured different forms of
torture.' The body of one was scourged with
rods. Another was punished with insupportable
rackings and scrapings, in which some suf-
fered a miserable death. Others passed 2
through different conflicts. Thus one, while
those around pressed him on by force and
dragged him to the abominable and impure sac-
rifices, was dismissed as if he had sacrificed,
though he had not.^ Another, though he had
not approached at all, nor touched any polluted
^ We learn from Lactantius (/.c.) that the officers of the church,
under the terms of the second edict, were thrown into prison without
any option being given them in the matter of sacrificing. They
were not asked to sacrifice, but were imprisoned unconditionally.
This was so far in agreement with Valerian's edict, which had de-
creed the instant death of all church officers without the option of
sacrificing. But as Eusebius tells us here, they were afterwards
called upon to sacrifice, and as he tells us in the first paragraph of
the next chapter, multitudes yielded, and that of course meant their
release, as indeed we are directly told in chap. 6, § lo. We may
gather from the present passage and from the other passages referred
to, taken in connection with the second chapter of the Martyrs pf
Palestine, that this decree, ordaining their release on condition of
sacrificing, was issued on the occasion of Diocletian's Vicennalia,
which were celebrated in December, 303, on the twentieth anniver-
sary of the death of Cams, which Diocletian reckoned as the begin-
ning of his reign, though he was not in reality emperor until the
following September. A considerable time, therefore, elapsed be-
tween the edict ordaining the imprisonment of church officers and
the edict commanding their release upon condition of sacrificing.
This latter is commonly known as Diocletian's Third Edict, and is
usually spoken of as still harsher than any that preceded it. It is
true that it did result in the torture of a great many, — for those
who did not sacrifice readily were to be compelled to do so, if possi-
ble, — but their death was not aimed at. If they would not sacrifice,
they were simply to remain in prison, as before. Those who did
die at this time seem to have died under torture that was intended,
not to kill them, but to bring about their release. As Mason shows,
then, this third edict was of the nature of an amnesty; was rather
a step toward toleration than a sharpening of the persecution. The
prisons were to be emptied, as was customary on such great occa-
sions, and the church officers were to be permitted to return to
their homes, on condition that they should sacrifice. Inasmuch as
they had not been allowed to leave prison on any condition before,
this was clearly a mark of favor (see Mason, p. 206 sq.). Many were
released even without sacrificing, and in their desire to empty the
prisons, the governors devised various expedients for freeing at least
a part of those who would not yield (cf. the instances mentioned in
the next chapter). At the same time, some governors got rid of
their prisoners by putting them to death, sometimes simply by in-
creasing the severity of the tortures intended to try them, sometimes
as a penalty for rash or daring words uttered by the prisoners, which
were interpreted as treasonable, and which, perhaps, the officials
had employed their ingenuity, when necessary, to elicit. Thus
many might suffer death, under various legal pretenses, although
the terms of the edict did not legally permit death to be inflicted as
a punishment for Christianity. The death penalty was not decreed
until the issue of the Fourth Edict (see below. Mart. Pal. chap.
3, note 2).
1 fivpioi S aAAoi. See the previous chapter, note 8.
- i.e. those who, when freedom was offered them on condition of
sacrificing, refused to accept it at that price. It was desirous; that
the prisons which had for so long been filled with these Christian
prisoners (see chap. 6, § 9) should, if possible, be cleared; and this
doubtless combined with the desire to break the stubbornness of the
prisoners to promote the use of torture at this time.
>* See the previous chapter, note 8.
326
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VIII. 3.
thing, when others said that he had sacrificed,
went away, bearing the accusation in silence.
Another being taken up half dead, was cast
aside as if already dead, and again a certain
3 one lying upon the ground was dragged a
long distance by his feet and counted
among those who had sacrificed. One cried
out and with a loud voice testified his rejec-
tion of the sacrifice ; another shouted that he
was a Christian, being resplendent in the con-
fession of the saving Name. Another protested
that he had not sacrificed and never would.
But they were struck in the mouth and silenced
by a large band of soldiers who were drawn
4 up for this purpose ; and they were smitten
on the face and cheeks and driven away
by force ; so important did the enemies of piety
regard it, by any means, to seem to have accom-
pHshed their purpose. But these things did not
avail them against the holy martyrs ; for an ac-
curate description of whom, what word of ours
could suffice?
CHAPTER IV.
The Famous Martyrs of God, who filled Every
Place with their Memory and won Various
Crowns in behalf of Religion.
1 For we might tell of many who showed
admirable zeal for the religion of the God
of the universe, not only from the beginning of
the general persecution, but long before
2 that time, while yet peace prevailed. For
though he who had received power was
seemingly aroused now as from a deep sleep,
yet from the time after Decius and Valerian,
he had been plotting secretly and without no-
tice against the churches. He did not wage
war against all of us at once, but made trial at
first only of those in the army. For he suj)-
posed that the others could be taken easily if
he should first attack and subdue these. There-
upon many of the soldiers were seen most cheer-
fully embracing private life, so that they might
not deny their piety toward the Creator of
3 the universe. For when the commander,'
whoever he was,^ began to persecute the sol-
1 (TTpaToniSdpxri^.
2 In the Ckron. we are told of a commander by name Veturius,
who is doubtless to be identified with the one referred to here. Why
Kusebius does not give his name in the History, we do not know.
There seems to be contempt in the phrase, " whoever he was," and
it may be that he did not consider him worth naming. In Jerome's
version of the Chron. (sixteenth year of Diocletian) we read:
Veturius magUter tniUtice Christianas milites pcrsequitur,pan-
tatim ex illojam tempore f>ersecutione adversum nos iiicipiente ;
in the Armenian (fourteenth year) : Veturius magister militia' eos
gut in exercitu Christiani eraiit, clanculum opprimebat atque
ex hoc inde tempore ubique locorum persecutio se exteudit.
Evidently the occurrence took place a few years before the outbreak
of the regular persecution, but the exact date cannot be determined.
It is probable, moreover, from the way in which Eusebius refers to
the man in the History that he was a comparatively insignificant
commander, who took the course he did on nis own responsibility.
diers, separating into tribes and purging those
who were enrolled in the army, giving them the
choice either by obeying to receive the honor
which belonged to them, or on the other hand
to be deprived of it if they disobeyed the com-
mand, a great many soldiers of Christ's kingdom,
without hesitation, instantly preferred the con-
fession of him to the seeming glory and
prosperity which they were enjoying. And 4
one and another of them occasionally re-
ceived in exchange, for their pious constancy,^
not only the loss of position, but death. But
as yet the instigator of this plot proceeded with
moderation, and ventured so far as blood only
in some instances ; for the multitude of believ-
ers, as it is likely, made him afraid, and deterred
him from waging war at once against all.
But when he made the attack more boldly, 5
it is impossible to relate how many and
what sort of martyrs of God could be seen,
among the inhabitants of all the cities and
countries.''
CHAPTER V.
Those in Nicomedia}
Immediately on the publication of the 1
decree against the churches in Nicomedia,"
a certain man, not obscure but very highly
honored with distinguished temporal dignities,
moved with zeal toward God, and incited with
ardent faith, seized the edict as it was posted
openly and publicly, and tore it to pieces as a
profane and impious thing ; ^ and this was done
At least, there is no reason to connect the act with Diocletian and to
suppose it ordered by him. All that we know of his relation to the
Christians forbids such a supposition. There may have been some
particular occasion for such a move in the present instance, which
evidently affected only a small part of the army, and resulted in only
a few deaths (see the next paragraph). Perhaps some insubordi-
nation was discovered among the Christian soldiers, which led the
commander to be suspicious of all of them, and hence to put the
test to them, — which was always in order, — to prove their loyalty.
It is plain that he did not intend to put any of them to death, but
only to dismiss such as refused to evince their loyalty by offering
the customary sacrifices. Some of the Christian soldiers, however,
were not content with simple dismission, but in their eagerness to
evince their Christianity said and did things which it was impossible
for any commander to overlook (cf. the instances given by Ma.son,
p. 41 sq.). It was such soldiers as these that suffered death; and
they of course were executed, not because they were Christians, but
because they were insubordinate. Their death was brought on
themselves by their foolish fanaticism; and they have no claim to be
honored as martyrs, although Eusebius evidently regarded them as
such.
■' We should rather say " for their rash and unjustifiable fanat-
icism."
^ In this sentence reference is made to the general persecution,
which did not begin until some time after the events recorded in the
previous paragraphs.
' Nicomedia, the capital city of Eithynia, became Diocletian's
chief place of residence, and was made by him the Eastern capital oi
the empire.
2 The great church of Nicomedia was destroyed on Feb. 23, 303,
and the I'irst Edict was published on the following day (sec above,
chap. 2, note 3).
3 Lactantius relates this account in his Df mart. pers. chap.
13, and expresses disapproval of the act, while admiring the
spirit of the man. He, too, is silent in regard to the name of the
man, though, living as he did in Nicomedia, he can hardly have
been ignorant of it. Wc may perhaps imagine that he did not
care to perpetuate the name of a man whom he considered to have
acted rashly and illegally. The old martyrologies give the man's
VIII. 6.]
MARTYRDOMS IN NICOMKDIA.
Z^l
while two of the sovereigns were in the same
city, — the oldest of all, and the one who held the
fourth ])lace in the government after him.'
2 But this man, first in that place, after dis-
tinguishing himself in such a manner suf-
fered those things which were likely to follow
such daring, and kept his spirit cheerful and
undisturbed till death.
CHAPTER VI.
Those in the Palace.
1 This period produced divine and illus-
trious martyrs, above all whose praises have
ever been sung and who have been celebrated
for courage, whether among Greeks or barba-
rians, in the person of Dorotheus ^ and the ser-
vants that were with him in the palace. Although
they received the highest honors from their mas-
ters, and were treated by them as their own
children, they esteemed reproaches and trials
for religion, and the many forms of death that
were invented against them, as, in truth, greater
riches than the glory and luxury of this life.
We will describe the manner in which one of
them ended his life, and leave our readers to infer
from his case the sufferings of the others.
2 A certain man was brought forward in the
above-mentioned city, before the rulers of
whom we have spoken.' He was then com-
manded to sacrifice, but as he refused, he was
ordered to be stripped and raised on high and
beaten with rods over his entire body, until,
being conquered, he should, even against
3 his will, do what was commanded. But as
he was unmoved by these sufferings, and
his bones were already appearing, they mixed
vinegar with salt and poured it upon the man-
gled parts oi his body. As he scorned these
agonies, a gridiron and fire were brought for-
ward. And the remnants of his body, like flesh
intended for eating, were placed on the fire, not
at once, lest he should expire instantly, but a
little at a time. And those who placed him on
the pyre were not permitted to desist until, after
such sufferings, he should assent to the
4 things commanded. But he held his pur-
pose firmly, and victoriously gave up his
name as John. That he deserved death is clear enough. He was
not a martyr to the faith, but a criminal, who was justly executed
for treasonable conduct. The first edict contemplated no violence
to the persons of the Christians. If they suffered death, it was solely
in consequence of their own rashness, as in the present case. It is
clear that such an incident as this would anger Diocletian and in-
crease his suspicions of Christians as a class, and thus tend to pre-
cipitate a regular persecution. It must have seemed to the authori-
ties that the man would hardly commit such a foolhardy act unless
he was conscious of the support of a large body of the populace, and
so the belief in the wide extension of the plot which had caused the
movement on the part of the emperors must have been confirmed.
See below, p. 398 sq. •■ i.e. Diocletian and Galerius.
^ On Dorotheus, see above, chap, i, note 3.
- i.e. in Nicomedia, before Diocletian and Galerius,
life while the tortures were still going on. Such
was the martyrdom of one of the servants of the
palace, who was indeed well worthy of his
name, for he was called Peter.' The martyr- 5
doms of the rest, though they were not infe-
rior to his, we will pass by for the sake of brevity,
recording only that I)orotheus and Gorgonius,Svith
many others of the royal household, after varied
sufferings, ended their lives by strangling, and
bore away the trophies of God-given victory.
At this time Anthimus,^ who then pre- 6
sided over the church in Nicomedia, was
beheaded for his testimony to Christ. A great
multitude of martyrs were added to him, a con-
flagration having broken out in those very days
in the palace at Nicomedia, I know not how,
which through a false suspicion was laid to our
3 7re'Tpo5, "a rock." It is clear from the account of Lactantius
(chap. 15) that this man, and the others mentioned in this connec-
tion, suffered after the second conflagration in the palace and in
consequence of it (see below, p. 400). The two conflagrations led
Diocletian to resort to torture in order to ascertain the guilty parties,
or to obtain information in regard to the plots of the Christians.
Examination by torture was the common mode of procedure under
such circumstances, and hence implies no unusual cruelty in the
present case. The death even of these men, therefore, cannot be
looked upon as due to persecution. Their offense was purely a
civil one. They were suspected of being implicated in a treasonable
plot, and of twice setting fire to the palace. Their refusal to sacri-
fice under such circumstances, and thus evince their loyalty at so
critical a time, was naturally looked upon as practically a confession
of guilt, — at any rate as insubordination on a most grave occasion,
and as such fitly punishable by death. Compare Pliny's epistle to
Tmjan, in which he expresses the opinion that " pertinacious and
inflexible obstinacy" ought at any rate to be punished, whatever
might be thought of Christianity as such (see above, Bk. III. chap.
33, note i) ; and at such a time as this Diocletian must have felt that
the first duty of all his subjects was to place their loyalty beyond
suspicion by doing readily that which was demanded. His impa-
tience with the Christians must have been increasing under all these
provocations, and thus the regular persecution was becoming ever
more imminent.
■* Gorgonius has been already mentioned in chap, i, above. See
note 4 on that chapter.
•i In a fragment preserved by the Chron. Paschale, and purport-
ing to be a part of an epistle written from prison, shortly before his
death, by the presbyter Lucian of Antioch to the church of that
city, Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, is mentioned as having just
suffered martyrdom (see Routh's Rcl. Sac. IV. p. 5). Lucian,
however, was imprisoned and put to death during the persecution
of Maximinus (a.d. 311 or 312). See below, Bk. IX. chap. 6, and
Jerome's dc vir. ill. chap. 77. It would seem, therefore, if the
fragment given in the Chron. Paschale be genuine, and there
seems no good reason to doubt it, that Anthimus suffered martyr-
dom not under Diocletian, but under Maximinus, in 311 or 312. In
that case Eusebius is mistaken in putting his death at this early
date, in connection with the members of the imperial household.
Indeed, wc see no reason for his execution at this time, and .should
find it difficult to explain if we were to accept it. In the time of
Maximinus, however, it is perfectly natural, and of a piece with the
execution of Peter of Alexandria and other notable prelates. Euse-
bius, as we have already seen, pays no attention to chronology in
this Eighth Book, and hence there is no great weight to be placed
upon his mention of the death of Anthimus at this particular place.
Mason (p. 324) says that Hunziker (p. 281) has conclusively shown
Eusebius' mistake at this point. I have not seen Hunziker, and
therefore cannot judge of the validity of his arguments, but, on the
grounds already stated, have no hesitation in expressing my agree-
ment with his conclusion. Of Anthimus himself, we know nothing
beyond what has been already intimated. _ In chap. 13, § i, below,
he is mentioned again, but nothing additional is told us in regard
to him.
Having observed Eusebius' mistake in regard to Anthimus, \ve
realize that there is no reason to consider him any more accurate m
respect to the other martyrdoms referred to in this panigraph. In
fact, it is clear enough that, in so far as his account is not merely
rhetorical, it relates to events that took place not at this early date,
but during a later time, after the regular religious persecution had
begun. No such "multitude" suffered in consequence of the con-
flagration as Eusebius thinks. The martyrdoms of which he has
heard belong rather to the time after the Fourth Edict (see below,
Mart. Pal.'chap. 3, note 2), or possibly to the still later time when
Maximinus was at Nicomedia, and was in the midst of his blcody
career of persecution,
;28
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VIII. 6.
people." Entire families of the pious in that
place were put to death in masses at the royal
command, some by the sword, and others by
fire. It is reported that with a certain divine
and indescribable eagerness men and women
rushed into the fire. And the executioners
bound a large number of others and put them
on boats ^ and threw them into the depths of
7 the sea. And those who had been es-
teemed their masters considered it neces-
sary to dig up the bodies of the imperial servants,
who had been committed to the earth with suit-
able burial, and cast them into the sea, lest any,
as they thought, regarding them as gods, might
w-orship them lying in their sepulchers.**
Such things occurred in Nicomedia at the
8 beginning of the persecution.'* But not
long after, as persons in the country called
Melitene,^" and others throughout Syria," at-
" Eusebius does not accuse Galerius of being tlie author of the
conflagration, as Lactantius does. In fact, he seems to have known
very little about the matter. He mentions only one fire, whereas
Lactantius distinctly tells us there were two, fifteen days apart
(cliap. 14). Eusebius evidendy has only the very vaguest informa-
tion in regard to the progress of aflTairs at Nicomedia, and has no
knowledge of the actual order and connection of events. In regard
to the effects of the fire upon Diocletian's attitude toward the Chris-
tians, see above, note 3, and below, p. 400. Constantine {Orat. ad
Sauct. Coet. XXV. 2) many years after\vards referred to the fire as
caused by lightning, which is clearly only a makeshift, for, as
Burckhardt remarks, there could have been no doubt in that case
how the fire originated. And, moreover, such an explanation at
best could account for only one of the fires. The fact that Constan-
tine feels it necessary to invent such an explanation gives the occur-
rence a still more suspicious look, and one not altogether favorable
to the Christians. In fact, it must be acknowledged that the case
against them is pretty strong.
' Literally, " The executioners, having bound a large number
of others on boats, threw them ipto the depths of the sea " (5>)<Ta>;Tes
&k 01 Srjfiioi aAAo Ti 7rA)(9o5 in't cTKcLiliai'i, Toi? ^aAarrioi? ecaTreppiw-
Tov fivBoU). The construction is evidently a pregnant one, for it
cannot be supposed that boats and all were thrown into the depths
of the sea. They seem to have bound the prisoners, and carried
them out to sea on boats, and then thrown them overboard. Com-
pare the Passion of St. Theodotus (Mason, p. 362), where we are
told that the " President then bade them hang stones about their
necks, and embark them on a small shallop and row them out to a
spot where the lake was deeper; and so they were cast nito the
water at the distance of four or five hundred feet from the shore."
Crus6 translates, " binding another number upon planks," but o-/ca0T;
will hardly bear that meaning; and even if it could, wc should scarcely
expect men to be bound to planks if the desire was to " cast them
into the depths of the sea." Lactantius (chap. 15), in speaking of
these same general occurrences, says, " Servants, having millstones
tied about their necks, were cast into the sea."
Closs remarks that drowning was looked vipon in ancient times
as the most disgraceful punishment, because it implied that the
criminals were not worthy to receive burial.
" Compare Bk. IV. chap. 15, § 41, above, and Lactantius, Div.
Inst. V. IT. That in the present case the suspicion that the Chris-
tians would worship the remains of these so-called martyrs was not
founded merely upon knowledge of the conduct of Christians in gen-
eral in relation to the relics of their martyrs, but upon actual expe-
rience of their conduct in connection with these particular martyrs,
is shown by the fact that the emperor first buried them, and afterward
had them dug up. Evidently Christians showed them such honor,
and collected in such numbers about their tombs, that he believed
it was necessary to take some such step in order to prevent the growth
of a spirit of rebellion, which was constantly fostered by such demon-
strations. Compare the remarks of Mason on p. 135.
" Part of the events mentioned in this chapter occurred at the
beginning; others, a considerable time later. See note 5, above.
'" Mclitene was the name of a district and a city in Eastern
Cappadocia. Upon the outbreak there we know only what can be
gathered from this passage, although Mason (p. 126 si].) connects it
with a rebellion, of which an account is given in Simeon Mctaphras-
tes. It is possible that the account of the Met.aphrast is authentic,
and that the uprising referred to here is to be identified with it, but
more than that cannot be said. There can be no doubt that the out-
break was one of the causes of the promulgation of the Second Edict,
in which case of cour.sc it is clear that the Christians, whether rightly
or wrongly, were held responsible for it. Sec above, chap. 2, note 7.
tempted to usurp the government, a royal edict
directed that the rulers of the churches every-
where ^- should be thrown into prison and
bonds. What was to be seen after this 9
exceeds all description. A vast multitude
were imprisoned in every place ; and the prisons
everywhere, which had long before been pre-
pared for murderers and robbers of graves,
were filled with bishops, presbyters and dea-
cons, readers and exorcists,^^ so that room was
no longer left in them for those condemned
for crimes. And as other decrees followed 10
the first, directing that those in prison if
they would sacrifice should be permitted to
depart in freedom, but that those who refused
should be harassed with many tortures," how
could any one, again, number the multitude of
martyrs in every province,'^ and especially of
those in Africa, and Mauritania, and Thebais,
and Egypt? From this last country many went
into other cities and provinces, and became
illustrious through martyrdom.
CHAPTER VII.
The Egyptians in Phoenicia.
1
Those of them that were conspicuous m
Palestine we know, as also those that were
at Tyre in Phoenicia.' Who that saw them was
" Valesius identifies this usurpation in Syria with that of Eugenius
in Antioch, of which we are told by Libanius (in his Oratio ad
Thcodosiiiin post rccottciliatinncin, and in his Oratio ad Thcod.
de seditione Antioch., according to Valesius). The latter was but a
small affair, involving only a band of some five hundred .soldiers, who
compelled their comm.ander Eugenius, to assume the purple, but were
entirely destroyed by the people of the city within twenty-four hour.s.
See the note of Valesius ad locnvt, Tillemont's Hist, dts Kinp. IX.
73 sq., and Mason, p. 124 sq. This rebellion took place in the lime
of Diocletian, but there is no reason for connecting it with the up-
rising mentioned here by Eusebius. The words of Eusebius would
seem to imply that he was thinking, not of a single rebellion, but of
a number which took place in various parts of Syria. In that case,
the Antiochian affair may have been one of them.
t2 Tous 7Tat'Ta\6a'e Twf kKK\y\aimv 7Tpo€<TTu>Ta5. L^pon tnis sec-
ond edict, see above, chap. 2, note 7.
'3 It is evident enough from this clause alone that the word
Trpoeo-Tiira?, " rulers," is to be taken in a broad sense. See the
note just referred to.
1^ The Third Edict of Diocletian. Eusebius evidently looks
upon the edict as a sharpening of the persecution, but is mistaken in
his view. The idea was not that those who refused to sacrifice
should be jiunished by torture for not sacrificing, but that torture
should be ajjplied in order to induce them to sacrifice, and thus ren-
der it possible to release them. The end sought was their release,
not their punishment. Upon the date and interpretation of this
edict, see chap. 2, note 8.
1'' Eusebius is prob.ably again in error, as so often in this book,
in connecting a " nudtitude of martyrs in every province" with this
Third Edict. Wholesale persecution and persecution as such -—
aimed directly at the destruction of all Christians — did not begin
until the issue of the Fourth Edict (see below. Mart- Pal. chap. 3,
note 2). These numerous martyrdoms referred to here doubtless
belong to the period after the issue of that edict, although in Africa
and Mauritania, which were under Maximian, considerable blood
was prob.ably shed even before that time. For it was possible, of
course, for a cruel and irresponsible ruler like Maximian to fix the
death penalty for refusal to deliver up the Christian books, or for
other acts of obstinacy which the Christian would quite commonly
commit. These cases, however, nuist be looked upon as excep-
tional at this stage of afThirs, and certainly rare.
' From the Martyrs 0/ Palestine, chap. 8 sq. (more fully in
the Syriac; Cureton's English translation, p. 26 sq.), we learn lliat
in the sixth and following years of the persecution, many Egyptian
Christians were sent to Palestine to labor in the mines there, and
that ihcy underwent the severest tortures in that countrj'. No men-
VIII. 9]
MARTYRDOMS AT TYRE AND IN EGYPT.
329
not astonished at the numberless strijies, and at
the firmness which these truly wonderful atliletes
of religion exhibited under them? and at their
contest, immediately after the scourging, with
bloodthirsty wild beasts, as they were cast be-
fore leopards and different kinds of bears and
wild boars and bulls goadetl with fire and red-hot
iron ? and at the marvelous endurance of these
noble men in the face of all sorts of wild
beasts ?
2 We were present ourselves when these
things occurred, and have put on record
the divine power of our martyred Saviour Jesus
Christ, which was present and manifested itself
mightily in the martyrs. For a long time the
man-devouring beasts did not dare to touch or
ilraw near the bodies of those dear to God, but
rushed upon the others who from the outside
irritated and urged them on. And they would
not in the least touch the holy athletes, as they
stood alone and naked and shook their hands
at them to draw them toward themselves, — for
they were commanded to do this. But when-
ever they rushed at them, they were restrained
as if by some diviner power and retreated
3 again. This continued for a long time,
and occasioned no little wonder to the
spectators. And as the first wild beast did
nothing, a second and a third were let loose
4 against one and the same martyr. One
could not but be astonished at the invinci-
ble firmness of these holy men, and the endur-
ing and immovable constancy of those whose
bodies were young. You could have seen a
youth not twenty years of age standing unbound
and stretching out his hands in the form of a
cross, with unterrified and untrembling mind,
engaged earnestly in prayer to God, and not in
the least going back or retreating from the place
where he stood, while bears and leopards, breath-
ing rage and death, almost touched his flesh.
And yet their mouths were restrained, I know
not how, by a divine and incomprehensible
power, and they ran back again to their place.
Such an one was he.
5 Again you might have seen others, for
they were five in all, cast before a wild bull,
who tossed into the air with his horns those who
approached from the outside, and mangled
them, leaving them to be taken up half dead ;
but when he rushed with rage and threatening
upon the holy martyrs, who were standing alone,
he was unable to come near them ; but though
he stamped with his feet, and pushed in all
tion is made of such persons in the Martyrs of Palestine previous
to the sixth year. Those in Tyre to whom Eusebius refers very
likely suffered during the same period; not under Diocletian, but
under Maximinus, when the persecution was at its height. Since in
his Martyrs of Palestine Eusebius confines himself to those who
suffered in that country (or were natives of it), he has nothing to
say about those referred to in this chapter, who seem, from the
opening of the next chapter, to have suffered, all of them, in Tyre.
directions with his horns, and breathed rage and
threatening on account of the irritation of the
burning irons, he was, nevertheless, held back
by the sacred Providence. And as he in no-
wise harmed them, they let loose other
wild beasts upon them. Finally, after these 6
terrible and various attacks upon them,
they were all slain with the sword ; and instead
of being buried in the earth they were com-
iiiitted to the waves of the sea.
CHAPTER VIII.
Those in Egypt}
Such was the conflict of those Egyptians 1
who contended nobly for religion in Tyre.
But we must admire those also who suffered
martyrdom in their native land ; where thou-
sands of men, women, and children, despising
the present life for the sake of the teaching
of our Saviour, endured various deaths.
Some of them, after scrapings and rackings 2
and severest scourgings, and numberless
other kinds of tortures, terrible even to hear
of, were committed to the flames ; some were
drowned in the sea ; some offered their heads
bravely to those who cut them off; some died
under their tortures, and others perished with
hunger. And yet others were crucified ; some
according to the method commonly emj)loyed
for malefactors ; others yet more cruelly, being
nailed to the cross with their heads downward,
and being kept alive until they perished on the
cross with hunger.
CHAPTER IX.
Those in Thebais}
It would be impossible to describe the 1
outrages and tortures which the martyrs in
Thebais endured. They were scraped over the
entire body with shells instead of hooks until
they died. Women were bound by one foot
and raised aloft in the air by machines, and with
their bodies altogether bare and uncovered, pre-
sented to all beholders this most shamefiil,
cruel, and inhuman spectacle. Others being 2
bound to the branches and trunks of trees
perished. For they drew the stoutest branches
' No part of Christendom suffered more severely during these
years than the territory of the tyrant Maximinus, who became a Ca;-
sar in 305, and who ruled in Egypt and Syria.
1 Thebais, or the territory of Thebes, was one of the three great
divisions of E,g>'pt, lying between lower Egypt on the north and
^Ethiopia on the south. From § 4, below, we learn that Eusebius
was himself an eye-witness of at least some of the martyrdoms to
which he refers in the present chapter. Reasons have been given on
p. 10, above, for supposing that he did not visit Egypt until the later
years of the persecution, indeed not until toward the verj' end of it;
and it is therefore to this period that the events described in this
chapter are to be ascribed.
330
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VIII. 0.
together with machines, and bound the Umbs
of the martyrs to them ; and then, allowing the
branches to assume their natural position, they
tore asunder instantly the limbs of those
3 for whom they contrived this. All these
things were done, not for a few days or a
short time, but for a long series of years. Some-
times more than ten, at other times above twenty
were put to death. Again not less than thirty,
then about sixty, and yet again a hundred men
with young children and women, were slain in
one day, being condemned to various and
diverse torments.
4 We, also, being on the spot ourselves,
have observed large crowds in one day ;
some suffering decapitation, others torture by
fire ; so that the murderous sword was blunted,
and becoming weak, was broken, and the very
executioners grew weary and relieved each
5 other. And we beheld the most wonder-
ful ardor, and the truly divine energy and
zeal of those who believed in the Christ of God.
For as soon as sentence was pronounced against
the first, one after another rushed to the judg-
ment seat, and confessed themselves Christians.
And regarding with indifference the terrible
things and the multiform tortures, they declared
themselves boldly and undauntedly for the re-
ligion of the God of the universe. And they
received the final sentence of death with joy
and laughter and cheerfulness ; so that they
sang and offered up hymns and thanksgivings
to the God of the universe till their very last
breath.
6 These indeed were wonderful ; but yet
more wonderful were those who, being dis-
tinguished for wealth, noble birth, and honor,
and for learning and philosophy, held everything
secondary to the true religion and to faith
7 in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. Such
an one was Philoromus, who held a high
office under the imperial government at Alex-
andria,- and who administered justice every day,
attended by a military guard corresponding to
his rank and Roman dignity. Such also was
Phileas," bishop of the church of Thmuis, a man
'_ "PX^i' Tica ou Trji' TVxov(Tav tt)? kot' 'AKe^dvSpeiav fiaai.-
Ai/cijs 6ioiKi)(Tecos c7Kfx"P"''/i^"'o?- Valesius says tliat Philoromus
was the Rationalis, seu procurator suuDiiaruin Aigypti, i.e. the
general finance minister of Egypt (sec above, 15k. VII. chap. lo,
note 8). I5iit the truth is, that the use of the nra implies that Eu-
sebius is not intending; to state the particular offic;e which he held,
but simply to indicate that he held some high office, and this is all
that we can claim for Philoromus. We know no more of him than is
told us here, though Acts of St. Fhileas and St. Philoromus are
extant, which contain an account of his martyrdom, and are printed
by the liollandists andby Ruinart (interesting extracts given by Tille-
mcmt, //. E. V. i>. 486 sq., and by Mason, p. 290 sq."). Tillemont
(^ibiii. p. 777) and others defend their genuineness, but Lardner
doubts it {Credibility, chap. 60). I have examined only the ex-
tracts printed by Tillemont and Mason, and am not prepared to
express .in opinion in the matter.
3 Pliileas, bishop of Thmuis (an important town in lower Egypt,
situated between the Tanile and Mendeaian br.anches of the Nile),
occupies an important place among the Diocletian martyrs. The
extant Acts of his martyrdom have been referred to in the previous
note. He is mentioned again by Euscbius in chaps. 10 and 13, and
eminent on account of his patriotism and the ser-
vices rendered by him to his country, and also
on account of his philosophical learning.
These persons, although a multitude of 8
relatives and other friends besought them,
and many in high position, and even the judge
himself entreated them, that they would have
compassion on themselves and show mercy to
their children and wives, yet were not in the
least induced by these things to choose the love
of life, and to despise the ordinances of our
Saviour concerning confession and denial. But
with manly and philosophic minds, or rather
with pious and God-loving souls, they perse-
vered against all the threats and insults of the
judge ; and both of them were beheaded.
CHAPTER X.
The IVritings of Pliileas the Martyr describing
the Occurrences at Alexandria.
Since we have mentioned Phileas as hav- 1
ing a high reputation for secular learning,
let him be his own witness in the following ex-
tract, in which he shows us who he was, and at
the same time describes more accurately than
we can the martyrdoms which occurred in his
time at Alexandria : ^
" Having before them all these examples 2
and models and noble tokens which are
given us in the Divine and Sacred Scriptures,
the blessed martyrs who were with us did not
hesitate, but directing the eye of the soul in sin-
cerity toward the God over all, and having their
mind set upon death for religion, they adhered
firmly to their calling. For they understood
that our Lord Jesus Christ had become man on
our account, that he might cut off all sin and
furnish us with the means of entrance into eter-
in the former a considerable part of his epistle to the people of his
diocese is quoted. Jerome mentions him in his de vir. ill. chap.
78, where he says: clcgaiitissiinum librutn dc iiiartyruin laude
coniposuit, et dispiitatione actorum liabita adversicin judicriii,
qui euiii sacrijicare co,^cbat, pro Christo capitc truncatiir. The
book referred to by Jerome seems to be identical with the epistle
quoted by Eusebius in the next chapter, for we have no record of
another work on this subject written by him. There is extant, how-
ever, the Latin version of an epistle inirporting to have been written
by the imprisoned bishops Hesychius, Pachymius, Theodorus, and
Phileas, to Melelius, author of the Mcletian schism. There seems
to be nothing in the epistle to disprove its genuineness, and it is
accepted by Routh and others. The authorship of the epistle is
commonly ascribed to Phileas, both because he is known to us as a
writer, and also because his name stands last in the opening of the
epistle. Eusebius says nothing of sui h an epistle (though the names
of all four of the bishops are mentioned in chap. 13, below). Je-
rome's silence in regard to it signifies nothing, for he only follows
Eusebius. Tliis epistle, and also the fragment of the one quoted in
the next chapter by Eusebius, are given by Routh, Rcl. Sac. IV.
p. 87 sq., and an English translation in the A nte-Nicenc Fathers,
VI. p. 161 sq.
Phileas' learning is praised very highly by Eusebius and Jerome,
and his scholarly character is emphasized in his .4cts. The date of
his death cannot be determined with exactness, but we may be con-
fident that it did not, at any rate, take place before 306, and very
likely not before 307. The epistle quoted in the next chapter was
written shortly before his martyrdom, as we learn from § 11 of that
chapter.
' On this epistle, see the previous chapter, note 3.
VIII. II.]
EPISTLE OE I'lULEAS.
131
nal life. For 'he counted it not a prize to be
on an equality with God, but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant ; and being found in
foshion as a man, he humbled himself unto
3 death, even the death of the cross.' ^ Where-
fore also being zealous for the greater gifts,
the Christ-bearing martyrs endured all trials and
all kinds of contrivances for torture ; not once
only, but some also a second time. And although
the guards vied with each other in threatening
them in all sorts of ways, not in words only, but
in actions, they did not give up their resolution ;
because 'perfect love casteth out fear."^
4 " What words could describe their courage
and manhness under every torture? For
as liberty to abuse them was given to all that
wished, some beat them with clubs, others with
rods, others with scourges, yet others with
5 thongs, and others with ropes. And the
spectacle of the outrages was varied and
exhibited great malignity. For some, with their
hands bound behind them, were suspended on
the stocks, and every member stretched by cer-
tain machines. Then the torturers, as com-
manded, lacerated with instruments * their entire
bodies ; not only their sides, as in the case of
murderers, but also their stomachs and knees
and cheeks. Others were raised aloft, suspended
from the porch by one hand, and endured the
most terrible suffering of all, through the disten-
sion of their joints and limbs. Others were
bound face to face to pillars, not resting on their
feet, but with the weight of their bodies bearing
on their bonds and drawing them tightly.
6 And they endured this, not merely as long
as the governor talked with them or was at
leisure, but through almost the entire day. For
when he passed on to others, he left officers
under his authority to watch the first, and ob-
serve if any of them, overcome by the tortures,
appeared to yield. And he commanded to cast
them into chains without mercy, and afterwards
when they were at the last gasp to throw them
7 to the ground and drag them away. For
he said that they were not to have the least
concern for us, but were to think and act as if
we no longer existed, our enemies having in-
vented this second mode of torture in addition
to the stripes.
8 " Some, also, after these outrages, were
placed on the stocks, and had both their
feet stretched over the four ^ holes, so that they
2 Phil. ii. 6-8
4
^ I John iv. 18.
Tois atJt.vvTripi.oL>;. The word a.ti.vi'Tripl.ov means literally a
weapon of defense, but the word seems to indicate in the present
case some kind of a sharp instrument with claws or hooks. Rufinus
translates ungttlcE, the technical term for an instrument of torture of
the kind just described. Valesius remarks, however, that these
a/xu>'T>)pi.a seem to have been something more than ungidce, for
Hesychius interprets d/u.vi'TTJpioc as fi'/)os Sia-To/xov, i.e. a " two-
edged sword."
^ The majority of the MSS., followed by Laemmer and Heinichen,
omit Ttaudpuiv, " four." The word, however, is found in a few
were compelled to lie on their backs on the
stocks, being unable to keep themselves up on
account of the fresh wounds with which their
entire bodies were covered as a result of the
scourging. Others were thrown on the ground
and lay there under the accumulated infliction
of tortures, exhibiting to the spectators a more
terrible manifestation of severity, as they bore
on their bodies the marks of the various and di-
verse punishments which had been invented.
As this went on, some died under the tor- 9
tures, shaming the adversary by their con-
stancy. Others half dead were shut up in ])rison,
and suffering with their agonies, they died in
a few days ; but the rest, recovering under the
care which they received, gained confidence by
time and their long detention in prison.
When therefore they were ordered to choose 10
whether they would be released from moles-
tation by touching the polluted sacrifice, and
would receive from them the accursed freedom,
or refusing to sacrifice, should be condemned
to death, they did not hesitate, but went to
death cheerfully. For they knew what had
been declared before by the Sacred Scrii^tures.
For it is said,^ ' He that sacrificeth to other gods
shall be utterly destroyed,'" and, 'Thou shalt
have no other gods before me.' '"*
Such are the words of the truly philosoph- 11
ical and God-loving martyr, which, be-
fore the final sentence, while yet in prison, he
addressed to the brethren in his parish, showing
them his own circumstances, and at the same
time exhorting them to hold fast, even after his
approaching death, to the religion of Christ.
But why need we dwell upon these things, 12
and continue to add fresh instances of the
conflicts of the divine martyrs throughout the
world, especially since they were dealt with no
longer by common law, but attacked like enemies
of war ?
CHAPTER XI.
Those in Fhrygia.
A SMALL town^ of Fhrygia, inhabited 1
solely by Christians, was completely sur-
good MSS., and is adopted by all the other editors and translators,
and seems necessary in the present case. Upon the instrument
referred to here, see above, Bk. IV. chap. i6, note 9. It would seem
that " four holes " constituted in ordinary cases the c.vtrcme limit.
But in two cases (Bk. V. chap, i, § 27, and Mart. Pal. chap. 2) we
are told of a " fifth hole." It is possible that the instruments
varied in respect to the number of the holes, for the way in which
the " four" is used here and elsewhere seems to indicate that the
extreme of torture is thought of.
6 (^Tjo-i: " He says," or " the Scripture saith."
' Ex. xxii. 20. ' Ex. XX. 3.
1 I read -noKixv-qv with the majority of MSS. and editors. A
number of MSS. read ttoAii', which is supported by Rufinus {urbctn
quandaiii) and Nicephorus, and is adopted by Laemmer and Hein-
ichen; but it would certainly be more natural for a copyist to exag-
gerate than to understate his original.
2 Lactantius {Dio iiist. V. 11), in speaking of persecutions in
general, says, " Some were swift to slaughter, as an individual in
352
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[vni. II.
rounded by soldiers while the men were in it.
Throwing fire into it, they consumed them with
the women and children while they were calling
upon Christ. This they did because all the in-
habitants of the city, and the curator himself,
and the governor, with all who held office, and
the entire populace, confessed themselves Chris-
tians, and would not in the least obey those who
commanded them to worship idols.
2 There was another man of Roman dig-
nity named Adauctus,- of a noble Italian
family, who had advanced through every honor
under the emperors, so that he had blamelessly
filled even the general offices of magistrate, as
they call it, and of finance minister.^ Besides
all this he excelled in deeds of piety and in
the confession of the Christ of God, and was
adorned with the diadem of martyrdom. He
endured the conflict for religion while still hold-
ing the office of finance minister.
CHAPTER XII.
Many Others, botJi Men and Women, who
suffered in Various Ways.
1 Why need we mention the rest by name,
or number the multitude of the men, or pic-
ture the various sufferings of the admirable mar-
tyrs of Christ? Some of them were slain with
the axe, as in Arabia. The limbs of some were
Phrygia who burnt an entire people, together with their place of
meeting [^u>iiversu»i populutn cum ipso puriter convetiticiilo)."
This apparently refers to the same incident which Eusebius records
in this chapter. Gibbon contends that not the city, but only the
church with the people in it was burned; and so Fletcher, the trans-
lator of Lactantius in the Ante-Niccne Fathers, understands the
passage (" who burnt a whole assembly of people, together with
their place of meeting"). Mason, on the other hand, contends that
the population of the entire city is meant. The Latin would seem,
however, to support Gibbon's interpretation rather than Mason's;
but in view of the account in Eusebius, the latter has perhaps most
in its favor. If the two passages be interpreted differently, we can
hardly determine which is the true version of the incident. Mason
has " no hesitation " in referring this episode to the period immediate-
ly following the First Edict of Diocletian, at the time when the rebel-
lions in Melitene and Syria were taking place. It may have occurred
at that time, but I should myself liave considerable hesitation in
referring it definitely to any particular period of the persecution.
If Eusebius' statement at the close of this paragraph could be relied
upon, we should be obliged to put the event after the issue of the
fourth edict, for not until that time were Christians in general called
upon to offer sacrifices. But the statement m.ay be merely a conclu-
sion of Eusebius' own ; .and since he docs not draw a clear distinction
between the various steps in the persecution, little weight can be laid
upon it.
2 Rufinus connects this man with the town of Phrygia just re-
ferred to, and makes him one of the victims of that catastrophe.
But Eusebius docs not intimate any such connection, and indeed
seems to separate him from the inhabitants of that city by the special
mention of him as a martyr. Moreover, the official titles given tn
him are hardly such as we should expect the citizen of an insignifi-
cant Phrygian town to bear. He is said, in fact, to have held the
highest imperial —not merely municipal — offices. We know noth-
ing more about ihc man than is told us here; nor do we know when
and where he suffered.
3 Ta9 (cafldAou jioiKijo-ec; t^i; Trap' avTots KaAou/neVrj? /Ltayio-rpd-
T>)TO? re icai KafloAi/toTrjTO';. The second office (icofloAtKoTr)?) is
apparently to be identified with that mentioned in lik. VII. chap. lo,
§ 5 (sec note 8 on that chapter). We can hardly believe, however!
that Adauctus (of whom we hear nowhere else) can have held so
high a position as is meant there, and therefore are forced to con-
clude that he was but one of a number of iuch finance ministers, and
h.id the administration of the funds only of a particular district in
his hands.
broken, as in Cappadocia. Some, raised on high
by the feet, with their heads down, while a gen-
tle fire burned beneath them, were suffocated
by the smoke which arose from the burning wood,
as was done in Mesopotamia. Others were
mutilated by cutting off their noses and ears
and hands, and cutting to pieces the other
members and parts of their bodies, as in
Alexandria.^ Why need we revive the recol- 2
lection of those in Antioch who were roasted
on grates, not so as to kill them, but so as
to subject them to a lingering punishment? Or
of others who preferred to thrust their right
hand into the fire rather than touch the im-
pious sacrifice ? Some, shrinking from the trial,
rather than be taken and fall into the hands
of their enemies, threw themselves from lofty
houses, considering death preferable to the
cruelty of the impious.
A certain holy person, — in soul admira- 3
ble for virtue, in body a woman, — who
was illustrious beyond all in Antioch for wealth
and family and reputation, had brought up in
the principles of religion her two daughters,
who were now in the freshness and bloom of
life. Since great envy was excited on their
account, every means was used to find them in
their concealment ; and when it was ascertained
that they were away, they were summoned de-
ceitfully to Antioch. Thus they were caught in
the nets of the soldiers. When the woman saw
herself and her daughters thus helpless, and
knew the things terrible to speak of that men
would do to them, — and the most unbearable
of all terrible things, the threatened violation
of their chastity," — she exhorted herself and
the maidens that they ought not to submit even
to hear of this. For, she said, that to surrender
their souls to the slavery of demons was worse
than all deaths and destruction ; and she set
before them the only deliverance from all
these things, — escape to Christ. They then 4
listened to her advice. And after arranging
their garments suitably, they went aside from
the middle of the road, having requested of
the guards a little time for retirement, and
cast themselves into a river which was flowing
I The barbarous mutilation of the Christians which is spoken of
here and farther on in the chapter, began, as we learn from the Mar-
tyrs of Palestine, in the sixth year of the persecution (a.d. 308).
The tyrant Maximin seems to have become alarmed at the number
of deaths which the persecution was causing, and to have hit upon
this atrocious expedient as a no less effectual means of piuiishmerit.
It was practiced apparently throughout Maximin's dominions; we
are told of numbers who were treated in this way, both in Egypt
and Palestine (see Mart. Pal. chap. 8 sq.).
- This abominable treatment of female Christians formed a fea-
ture of the persecutions both of Maximian and Maximin, who were
alike monsters of licentiousness. It was entirely foreign to all the
principles of Diocletian's government, and could never have been
allowed by him. It began apparently in Italy under Maximian, after
the publication by him of the Fourth Edict (see Marl. Pal. chap. 3,
note 2), and was continued in the East by Maximin, when he came
into power. We have a great many instances given of this kind of
treatment, and in many cases, as in the present, suicide relieved the
victims of the proposed indignity.
VIII. 13.]
MUTILATION OF CHRISTIANS.
5 by. Thus they destroyed themselves.^ But
tliere were two other virgins in the same
city of Antioch who served God in all things,
and were true sisters, illustrious in family and
distinguished in life, young and blooming, serious
in mind, pious in deportment, and admirable
for zeal. As if the earth could not bear such
excellence, the worshipers of demons com-
manded to cast them into the sea. And this
was done to them.
6 In Pontus, others endured sufferings hor-
rible to hear. Their fingers were pierced
with sharp reeds under their nails. Melted lead,
bubbling and boiling with the heat, was poured
down the backs of others, and they were
roasted in the most sensitive parts of the
7 body. Others endured on their bowels
and privy members shameful and inhuman
and unmentionable torments, which the noble
and law-observing judges, to show their se-
verity, devised, as more honorable manifes-
tations of wisdom. And new tortures were
continually invented, as if they were endeavor-
ing, by surpassing one another, to gain
8 prizes in a contest. But at the close of
these calamities, when finally they could
contrive no greater cruelties, and were weary
of putting to death, and were filled and satiated
with the shedding of blood, they turned to what
they considered merciful and humane treatment,
so that they seemed to be no longer devis-
9 ing terrible things against us. For they
said that it was not fitting that the cities
should be polluted with the blood of their own
people, or that the government of their rulers,
which was kind and mild toward all, should be
defamed through excessive cruelty ; but that
rather the beneficence of the humane and royal
authority should be extended to all, and we
should no longer be put to death. For the
infliction of this punishment upon us should
be stopped in consequence of the human-
10 ity of the rulers. Therefore it was com-
manded that our eyes should be put out,
and that we should be maimed in one of our
3 Eusebius evidently approved of these women's suicide, and it
must be confessed that they had great provocation. The views of
the early Church on the subject of suicide were in ordinary cases
very decided. They condemned it unhesitatingly as a crime, and
thus made a decided advance upon the position held by many emi-
nent Pagans of that age, especially among the Stoics. In two cases,
however, their opinion of suicide was somewhat uncertain. There
existed in many quarters a feeling of admiration for those who vol-
unt.irily rushed to martyrdom and needlessly sacrificed their lives.
The wiser and steadier minds, however, condemned this practice
unhesitatingly (cf. p. 8, above). The second case in connection
with which the opinions of the Fathers were divided, was that which
meets us in the present passage. The majority of them evidently
not only justified but commended suicide in such an extremity.
The first Father distinctly to condemn the practice was Augustine
{Dc' ci:'. Dei. I. 22-27). He takes strong ground on the subject,
and while admiring the bravery and chastity of the many famous
women that had rescued themselves by taking their own lives, he
denounces their act as sinful under all circumstances, maintaining
that suicide is never anything else than a crime against the law of
God. The view of Augustine has very generally prevailed since his
time. Cf. 'LecVy's History of Eiirof>ean Morals, 2,A edition (Apple-
ton, New York), Vol. II. p. 43 sq.
limbs. For such things were humane in their
sight, and the lightest of punishments for us.
So that now on account of this kindly treat-
ment accorded us by the impious, it was imjios-
sible to tell the incalculable number of those
whose right eyes had first been cut out with the
sword, and then had been cauterized with fire ;
or who had been disabled in the left foot by
burning the joints, and afterward condemned to
the provincial copper mines, not so much for
service as for distress and hardship. Besides
all these, others encountered other trials, which
it is impossible to recount ; for their manly
endurance surpasses all description. In 11
these conflicts the noble martyrs of Christ
shone illustrious over the entire world, and
everywhere astonished those who beheld their
manliness ; and the evidences of the truly divine
and unspeakable power of our Saviour were
made manifest through them. To mention
each l)y name would be a long task, if not in-
deed impossible.
CHAPTER XIII.
The Bishops of the Church that evinced by their
Bhiod the Geiniineuess of the Religion which
they preached.
As for the rulers of the Church that suffered 1
martyrdom in the principal cities, the first
martyr of the kingdom of Christ whom we shall
mention among the monuments of the pious is
Anthimus,' bishop of the city of Nicomedia,
who was beheaded. Among the martyrs 2
at Antioch was Lucian," a presbyter of that
parish, whose entire life was most excellent.
At Nicomedia, in the presence of the emperor,
he proclaimed the heavenly kingdom of Christ,
first in an oral defense, and afterwards by
deeds as well. Of the martyrs in Phoenicia 3
the most distinguished were those devoted
pastors of the spiritual flocks of Christ : Tyran-
nion,'' bishop of the church of Tyre ; Zenobius,
a presbyter of the church at Sidon ; and Sil-
vanus,^ bishop of the churches about Emesa.
1 On Anthimus, see above, chap. 6, note 5.
- On Lucian of Antioch, see below, Bk. IX. chap. 6, note 4.
2 Of Tyrannion and Zenobius, we know only what is told us here
and in the ne.xt paragraph. All of the martyrs of whom Eusebius
tells us in this and the following books are commemorated in the
Martyrologies, and accounts of the p.-ussions of many of them are
given in various Acts, usually of doubtful authority. I shall not
attempt to mention such documents in my notes, nor to give refer-
ences to the Martyrologies, unless there be some special reason for
it in connection with a case of particular interest. Wherever we
have farther information in regard to any of these martyrs, in Euse-
bius himself or other early Fathers, I shall endeavor to give the
needed references, passing other names by unnoticed. Tillemont
(//. E. v.) contains accounts of all these men, and all the neces-
sriry references to the Martyrologies, the Bollandist Acts, etc. To
his work the curious reader is referred.
•• Silvanus is mentioned again m Bk. IX. chap. 6, and from that
passage we learn that he was a very old man at the time of his
death, and that he had been bishop forty years. It is, moreover,
directly stated in that passage that Silvanus suffered martyrdom at
334
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VIII. 13.
4 The last of these, with others, was made
food for wild beasts at Emesa, and was thus
received into the ranks of martyrs. The other
two glorified the word of God at Antioch through
patience unto death. The bishop ^ was thrown
into the depths of the sea. But Zenobius, who
was a very skillful physician, died through severe
tortures which were applied to his sides.
5 Of the martyrs in Palestine, Silvanus,*' bishop
of the churches about Gaza, was beheaded
with thirty-nine others at the copper mines of
Phseno.^ There also the Egyptian bishops,
Peleus and Nilus,^ with others, suffered
6 death by fire. Among these we must men-
tion Pamphilus, a presbyter, who was the
great glory of the parish of Csesarea, and among
the men of our time most admirable. The vir-
tue of his manly deeds we have recorded
7 in the proper place.^ Of those who suf-
fered death illustriously at Alexandria and
throughout Eg}'pt and Thebais, Peter,^° bishop
of Alexandria, one of the most excellent teach-
ers of the religion of Christ, should first be men-
tioned ; and of the presbyters with him Faus-
tus,^^ Dius and Ammonius, perfect martyrs of
Christ ; also Phileas,'- Hesychius,^^ Pachymius
and Theodorus, bishops of Egyptian churches,
and besides them many other distinguished per-
the same period with Peter of Alexandria, namely, in the year 312
or thereabouts. This being the date also of Lucian's martyrdom,
mentioned just above, we may assume it as probable that all men-
tioned in this chapter suffered about the same time.
'' i.e. Tyrannion.
" Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, is mentioned also in Ufart. Fa!.
chaps. 7 and 13. From the former chapter we learn that he became
a confessor at Phaeno in the fifth year of the persecution (a.d. 307),
while still a presbyter; from the latter, that he suffered martyrdom
in the seventh year, at the very close of the persecution in Pales-
tine, and that he had been eminent in his confessions from the
beginning of the persecution.
' Phaino was a village of Arabia Petraea, between Petra and
Zoar, and contained celebrated copper mines, which were worked
by condemned criminals.
" Peleus and Nilus are mentioned in Mart. Pal. chap. 13, from
which passage we learn that they, like Silvanus, died in the seventh
year of the persecution. An anonymous presbyter, and a man named
Patermuthius, are named there as perishing with them in the flames.
" On Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VI I. chap. 32, note 40. Euse-
bius refers here to his Life of Paiiiphilus (see above, p. 28).
1" On Peter of Alexandria, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 54.
" Faustus is probably to be identified with the deacon of the same
name, mentioned above in Bk. VI. chap. 40 and in Bk. VII. chap.
II. At any rate, we learn from the latter chapter that the Faustus
mentioned there lived to a great age, and died in the persecution of
Diocletian, so that nothing stands in the way of identifying the two,
though in the absence of all positive testimony, the identification
cannot be insisted upon. Of Dius and Ammonius we know nothing.
'- On Phileas, see above, chap, g, note 3.
1-^ A Latin version of an epistle purporting to have been written
l)y these four bishops is still extant (see above, chap. 9, note 3).
We know nothing more about the last three named here. It has
been customary to identify this Hesychius with the reviser of the
text of the LXX and the Gospels which was widely current in Egypt
in the time of Jerome, and was known as the Hesychian recension
(see Jerome, I'rcef. in Paralipom., Apol. adv. Kiif. II. 27, Prtef.
in qiiattuoy Kvangelia ; and cf. Coinineut. in fsniain, LVIII. 11).
We know little about this text; but Jerome speaks of it slightingly,
as does also the Decretal of Gelasius, VI. § 15 (according to West-
cott's J/ist. of the C(?«o«, 5th ed. p. 392, note 5). The "identifica-
tion of the two men is quite possible, for the recension referred to
belonged no doubt to this period; but no positive arguments beyond
agreement in name and countrj' can be urged in support of it.
Fabricius proposed to identify our Hesychius with the author of the
famous (jreck Lexicon, which is still extant. But this identification
is now commonly rejected; and the author of the lexicon is regarded
as a pagan, who lived in Alexandria during the latter part of the
fourth century. See Smith's Diet, of Greek and Roman liiogra-
f':y and Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christ, Biog, s.v.
sons who are commemorated by the parishes of
their country and region.
It is not for us to describe the conflicts of
those who suffered for the divine religion through-
out the entire world, and to relate accurately
what happened to each of them. This would
be the proper work of those who were eye-
witnesses of the events. I will describe for pos-
terity in another work " those which I myself
witnessed. But in the present book ^^ I will 8
add to what I have given the revocation
issued by our persecutors, and those events that
occurred at the beginning of the persecution,
which will be most profitable to such as shall
read them.
What words could sufficiently describe the 9
greatness and abundance of the prosperity
of the Roman government before the war against
us, while the rulers were friendly and peaceable
toward us? Then those who were highest in
the government, and had held the position ten
or twenty years, passed their time in tranquil
peace, in festivals and public games and
most joyful pleasures and cheer. While 10
thus their authority was growing uninter-
ruptedly, and increasing day by day, suddenly
they changed their peaceful attitude toward us,
and began an implacable war. But the second
year of this movement was not yet past, when a
^'' Eusebius refers here to his i7/ar/j'r.ro/'/'(z/^j//«(^. See above,
1" Kara -Tov irapoi'Ta Aoyoi'. Eusebius seems to refer here to
the eighth book of his History; for he uses Aoyo? frequently in re-
ferring to the separate books of his work, but nowhere else, so far as
1 am aware, in referring to the work as a whole. This would seem
to indicate that he was thinking at this time of writing only eight
books, and of bringing his History to an end with the toleration edict
of Galerius, which he gives in chap. 17, below. Might it be sup-
posed that the present passage was written immediately after the
publication of the edict of Galerius, and before the renewal of the
persecution by Maximin? If that were so, we might assume that
after the close of that persecution, in consequence of the victory of
Constantine and Licinius, the historian felt it necessary to add yet a
ninth book to his work, not contemplated at the time he was writing
his eighth; as he seems still later, after the victory of Constantine
over Licinius, to have found it necessary to add a tenth book, in
order that his work might cover the entire period of persecution and
include the final triumph of the Church. His motive, indeed, in
adding the tenth book seems not to have been to bring the history
down to the latest date possible, for he made no additions during his
later years, in spite of the interesting and exciting events which took
place after 325 A.D., but to bring it down to the final triumph of the
Church over her pagan enemies. Had there been another persecu-
tion and another toleration edict between 325 and 338, we can hardly
doubt that Eusebius would have added an account of it to his His-
tory. In view of these considerations, it is possible that some time
may have elapsed between the composition of the eighth and ninth
books, as well as between the composition of the ninth and tenth.
It must be admitted, however, that a serious objection to this
supposition lies in the fact that in chaps. 15 and 16, below, the
tenth year of the persecution is spoken of, and in the latter chapter
the author is undoubtedly thinking of the Edict of Milan, which was
issued in 312, after the renewal of Maximin's persecution described
in I'ook IX. I am, nevertheless, inclined to think that Eusebius,
when he wrote the present passage, was expecting to close his work
with the present book, and that the necessity for another book made
itself manifest before he finished the present one. It may be that
the words in chaps. 15 and 16 are a later insertion. I do not regard
this as probable, but knowing the changes that were made in the
ninth book in a second edition of the History, it must be admitted
that such changes in the eighth book are not impossible (see above,
p. 30 and 45). At the same time I prefer the former alternative,
that the necessity for another book became manifest before he fin-
ished the present one. A slight confirmation of the theory that the
ninth book was a later addition, necessitated by the persecution of
Maximin's later years, may be foimd in the appendix to the eighth
book which is found in many MSS. Sec below, p. 340, note i.
vni. 13.]
CHANGES IN THE GOVERNMENT.
335
revolution took place in the entire govern-
11 ment and overturned all thintrs. For a
severe sickness came upon the chief of
those of whom we have spoken, by which his
understanding was distracted ; and with him
who was honored with the second rank, he re-
tired into private life.'" Scarcely had he done
this when the entire empire was divided ; a
thing which is not recorded as having ever
12 occurred before.'" Not long after, the Em-
peror Constantius, who through his entire
life was most kindly and favorably disposed
toward his subjects, and most friendly to the Di-
vine AVord, ended his life in the common course
of nature, and left his own son, Constantine, as
emperor and Augustus in his stead.^^ He was
J" The abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, the two Aiigusti,
took place on IVIay i, 305, and therefore a little more, not a little
less, than two years after the publication of Diocletian's First Edict.
The causes of the abdication have been given variously by different
writers, and our original authorities are themselves in no better
agreement. I do not propose to enter here into a discussion of the
subject, but am convinced that Burckhardt, Mason, and others are
correct in looking upon the abdication, not as the result of a sudden
resolve, but as a part of Diocletian's great plan, and as such long
resolved upon and regarded as one of the fundamental requirements
of his system to be regularly observed by his successors, as well as
by himself. The abdication of Diocletian and Ma.ximian raised the
Caesars Constantius and Galerius to the rank of Augusti, and two
new Csesars, Maximinus Daza in the East, and Severus in the West,
were appointed to succeed them. Diocletian himself retired to
Dalmatia, his native province, where he passed the remainder of his
lifi in rural pursuits, until his death in 313.
'^ Ensebius is correct in saying that the empire had never been
divided up to this time. For it had always been ruled as one whole,
even when the imperial power was shared by two or more princes.
And even the system of Diocletian was not meant to divide the
empire into two or more independent parts. The plan was simply
to vest the supreme power in two heads, who should be given lieu-
tenants to assist them in the government, but who should jointly
represent the unity of the whole while severally administering their
respective territories. Imperial acts to be valid had to be joint, not
individual acts, and had to bear the name of both Augusti, while the
Csesars were looked upon only as the lieutenants and representatives
of their respective superiors. Finally, in the last analysis, there was
theoretically but the one supreme head, the first Augustus. While
Diocletian was emperor, the theoretical unity was a practical thing.
So long as his strong hand was on the helm, Maximian, the other
Augustus, did not venture to do anything in opposition to his wishes,
and thus the great system worked smoothly. But with Diocletian's
abdication, everything was changed. Theoretically Constantius was
the first Augustus, but Galerius, not Constantius, had had the nam-
ing of the Caisars; and there was no intention on Galerius' part to
acknowledge in any way his inferiority to Constantius. In fact, being
in the East, whence the government had been carried on for
twenty years, it was natural that he should be entirely independent
of Constantius, and that thus, as Eusebius says, a genuine division
of the empire, not theoretical but practical, should be the result.
The principle remained the same; but West and East seemed now
to stand, not under one great emperor, but under two equal and
independent heads.
1* Constantius Chlorus died at York, in Britain, July 25, 306.
According to the system of Diocletian, the Csesar Severus should
regularly have succeeded to his place, and a new Caesar should have
been appointed to succeed Severus. But Constantine, the oldest
son of Constantius, who was with his father at the time of his death,
was at once proclaimed his successor, and hailed as Augustus by the
army. This was by no means to Galerius' taste, for he had far
other plans ift mind; but he was not in a position to dispute Con-
stantine's claims, and so made the best of the situation by recogniz-
ing Constantine not as Augustus, but as second Caesar, while he
raised Severus to the rank of Augustus, and made his own Caesar
Maximin first Caesar. Constantine was thus theoretically subject to
Severus, but the subjection was only a fiction, for he was practically
independent in his own district from that time on.
Our sources are unanimous in giving Constantius an amiable and
pious character, unusually free from bigotry and cruelty. Although
he was obliged to show some respect to the persecuting edicts of his
superiors, IDiocletian and Maximian, he seems to have been averse
to persecution, and to have gone no further than was necessary in
that direction, destroying some churches, but apparently subjecting
none of the Christians to bodily injury. We have no hint, however,
that he was a Christian, or that his generous treatment of the Chris-
tians was the result in any way of a belief in their religion. It was
simply the result of his natural tolerance and humanity, combined,
the first that was ranked by them among the
gods, and received after death every honor which
one could pay to an emperor.'" He was
the kindest and mildest of emperors, and 13
the only one of those of our day that })assed
all the time of his government in a manner
worthy of his office. Moreover, he conducted
himself toward all most favorably and benefi-
cently. He took not the smallest part in the
war against us, but preserved the pious that were
under him unharmed and unabused. He neither
threw down the church buildings,-" nor did he
devise anything else against us. The end of his
life was honorable and thrice blessed. He alone
at death left his empire happily and gloriously
to his own son as his successor, — one who was
in all respects most prudent and pious.
His son Constantine entered on the govern- 14
ment at once, being proclaimed supreme
emperor and Augustus by the soldiers, and long
before by God himself, the King of all. He
showed himself an emulator of his father's piety
toward our doctrine. Such an one was he.
But after this, Licinius was declared emperor
and Augustus by a common vote of the
rulers.^^ These things grieved Maximinus 15
greatly, for until that time he had been
entitled by all only Ccesar. He therefore, being
exceedingly imperious, seized the dignity for
himself, and became Augustus, being made such
by himself.-^ In the mean time he whom we
doubtless, with a conviction that there was nothing essentially
vicious or dangerous in Christianity.
^'■' Not the first of Roman emperors to be so honored, but the
first of the four rulers who were at that time at the head of the
empire. It had been the custom from the beginning to decree
divine honors to the Roman emperors upon their decease, unless
their characters or their reigns had been such as to leave universal
hatred behind them, in which case such honors were often denied
them, and their memory publicly and officially execrated, and all
their public monuments destroyed. The ascription of such honors
to Constantius, therefore, does not in itself imply that he was supe-
rior to the other three rulers, nor indeed superior to the emperors in
general, but only that he was not a monster, as some had been. The
last emperor to receive such divine honors was Diocletian himself,
with whose death the old pagan regime came finally to an end.
2" This is a mistake; for though Constantius seems to have pro-
ceeded as mildly as possible, he did destroy churches, as we are
directly informed by Lactantius (de Mort. pers. 15), and as we can
learn from extant Acts and other sources (see Mason, p. 146 sq.).
Eusebius, perhaps, knew nothing about the matter, and simply drew
a conclusion from the known character of Constantius and his gen-
eral tolerance toward the Christians.
2t The steps which led to the appointment of Licinius are
omitted by Eusebius. Maxentius, son of the old Augustus Max-
imian, spurred on by the success of Constantine's move in r.rilain,
attempted to follow his example in Italy. He won the support of a
considerable portion of the army and of the Roman people, and in
October of the same year (306) was proclaimed emperor by soldiers
and people. Severus, who marched against the usurper, was de-
feated and slain, and Galerius, who endeavored to revenge his
fallen colleague, was obliged to retreat without accomplishing any-
thing. This left Italy and Africa in the hands of an independent
ruler, who was recognized by none of the others. Toward the
end of the year 307, Licinius, an old friend and comrade-in-arms
of Galerius, was appointed Augustus to succeed Severus, whose
death had occurred a number of months before, but whose place had
not yet been filled. The appointment of Licinius took place at
Carnuntum on the Danube, where Galerius, Diocletian, and Max-
imian met for consultation. Inasmuch as Italy and Africa were
still in the hands of Maxentius, Licinius was given the Illyrian
provinces with the rank of second Augustus, and was thus nomi-
nally ruler of the entire West.
-- Early in 308 Maximinus, the first Caesar, who was naturally
incensed at the promotion of a new man, Licinius, to a position above
himself, was hailed as Augustus by his troops, and at once notified
33^
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VIII. 13.
have mentioned as having resumed his dignity
after his abdication, being detected in conspir-
ing against the life of Constantine, perished by a
most shameful death.-" He was the first whose
decrees and statues and public monuments were
destroyed because of his wickedness and im-
piety.'*
CHAPTER XIV.
The Cha7-actcr of the Enemies of Religion.
1 INIaxrntius his son, who obtained the gov-
ernment at Rome,' at first feigned our faith,
Galerius of the fact. The latter could not afford to quarrel with Max-
iminus, and therefore bestowed upon him the full dignity of an Augus-
tus, as upon Constantine also at the same time. There were thus
four independent Augusti (to say nothing of the emperor Ma.\en-
tius) , and the system of Diocletian was a thing of the past.
^ The reference is to the Augustus Maximian. After his abdi-
cation he retired to Lucania, but in the following year was induced
by his son, Maxentius, to leave his retirement, and join him in
wresting Italy and Africa from Severus. It was due in large meas-
ure to his military skill and to the prestige of his name that Severus
was vanquished and Galerius repulsed. After his victories Maximian
went to Gaul, to see Constantine and form an alliance with him.
He bestowed upon him the title of Augustus and the hand of his
daughter Fausta, and endeavored to induce him to join him in a
campaign against Galerius. This, however, Constantine refused to
do; and Maximian finally returned to Rome, where he found his
son Maxentius entrenched in the affections of the soldiers and the
people, and bent upon ruling for himself. After a bitter quarrel
with him, in which he attempted, but failed, to wrest the purple
from him, he left the city, attended the congress of Carnuntum,
and acquiesced in the appointment of Licinius as second Augus-
tus, which of course involved the formal renunciation of his own
claims and those of his son. He then betook himself again to Con-
stantine, but during the latter's temporary absence treacherously
had himself proclaimed Augustus by some of the troops. He was,
however, easily overpowered by Constantine, but was forgiven and
granted his liberty again. About two years later, unable to resist
the desire to reign, he made an attempt upon Constantine's life with
the hope of once more securing the power for himself, but was de-
tected and allowed to choose the manner of his own death, and in
February, 310, strangled himself. The general facts just stated are
well made out, but there is some uncertainty as to the exact order of
events, in regard to which our sources are at variance. Compare
especially the works of Hunziker, Burckhardt, and Mason, and the
respective articles in Smith's Diet, of Greek atid Roiiia7i Biog.
Eusebius' memory plays him false in this passage; for he has not
mentioned, as he states, Maximian's resumption of the imperial dig-
nity after his abdication. A few important MSS., followed by Hein-
ichen, omit the entire clause, " whom we have mentioned as having
resumed his dignity after his abdication." But the words are found
in the majority of the MSS. and in Rufinus, and are accepted by all
the other editors. There can, in fact, be no doubt that Eusebius
wrote the words, and that the omission of them in some codices is
due to the fact that some scribe or scribes perceived his slip, and
consequently omitted the clause.
-^ Valesius understands by this (as in § 12, above), the first of
the four emperors. But we find in Lactantius {ibid. chap. 42) the
distinct statement that Diocletian (whose statues were thrown down
in Rome with those of Maximian, to which they were joined, Janus-
fashion) was the first emperor that had ever suffered such an indig-
nity, and there is no hint in the text that Eusebius means any less
than that in making his statement, though we know that it is incor-
rect.
' See the previous chapter, note 21.
The character which Eusebius gives to Maxentius in this chapter
is borne out by all our sources, both heathen and Christian, and
seems not to oe greatly overdrawn. It has been sometimes dis-
puted whether he persecuted the Christians, but there is no ground
to suppose that he did, though they, in common with all his sul)-
jects, had to suffer from his oppression, and therefore hated him as
deeply as the others did. His failure to persecute tlie Christians as
such, and his restoration to them of the rights which they had en-
joyed before the beginning of the great persecution, can hardly be
looked upon as a result of a love or respect for our religion. It
was doubtless in part due to hostility to Galerius, but chiefly to
political considerations. He apparently saw what Constantine later
saw and profited by, — that it would be for his profit, and would
tend to strengthen his government, to gain the friendship of that
large body of his subjects which had been so violently handled
under the reign of his father. And, no doubt, the universal tolera-
tion which he offered was one of the great sources of his .strength at
the beginning of his reign. T^pon his final defeat by Constantine,
and his death, see below, I'.k. IX. chap. 9.
in complaisance and flattery toward the Roman
people. On this account he commanded his
subjects to cease persecuting the Christians,
pretending to religion that he might appear
merciful and mild beyond his predeces-
sors. But he did not prove in his deeds 2
to be such a person as was hoped, but ran
into all wickedness and abstained from no im-
purity or licentiousness, committing adulteries and
indulging in all kinds of corruption. For having
separated wives from their lawful consorts, he
abused them and sent them back most dishonor-
ably to their husbands. And he not only prac-
ticed this against the obscure and unknown, but
he insulted especially the most prominent and
distinguished members of the Roman sen-
ate. All his subjects, people and rulers, 3
honored and obscure, were worn out by
grievous oppression. Neither, although they
kept quiet, and bore the bitter servitude, was
there any relief from the murderous cruelty of
the tyrant. Once, on a small pretense, he gave
the people to be slaughtered by his guards ; and a
great multitude of the Roman populace were slain
in the midst of the city, with the spears and
arms, not of Scythians and barbarians, but
of their own fellow-citizens. It would be 4
impossible to recount the number of sena-
tors who were put to death for the sake of their
wealth ; multitudes being slain on various
pretenses. To crown all his wickedness, 5
the tyrant resorted to magic. And in his
divinations he cut open pregnant women, and
again inspected the bowels of newborn in-
fants. He slaughtered lions, and performed
various execrable acts to invoke demons and
avert war. For his only hope was that, by
these means, victory would be secured to
him. It is impossible to tell the ways in 6
which this tyrant at Rome oppressed his
subjects, so that they were reduced to such an
extreme dearth of the necessities of life as has
never been known, according to our contem-
poraries, either at Rome or elsewhere.
But Maximinus, the tyrant in the East, 7
having secretly formed a friendly alliance
with the Roman tyrant as with a brother in
wickedness, sought to conceal it for a long time.
But being at last detected, he suffered
merited punishment.^ It was wonderful 8
2 On the alliance of Maximinus with Maxentius, his war with
Licinius, and his death, see below, Bk. IX. chaps. 9 and 10. Upon
his accession to the Ca;sarship, and usurpation of the title of Augus-
tus, see above, chap. 13, notes 16 and 22.
Maximinus Daza was a nephew of Galerius, who owed his ad-
vancement, not to his own merits, but solely to the favor of his
uncle, but who, nevertheless, after acquiring power, was by no
means the tool (Jalerius had expected him to be. Eusebius seems
not to have exaggerated his wickedness in the least. He was the
most abandoned and vicious of the numerous rulers of the time, and
was utterly without redeeming qualities, so far as we can ascertain.
Under him the Christians suffered more severely than under any of
his colleagues, and even after the toleration edict and death of Gale-
rius (A.n. 3T1), he continued the persecution for more than a year.
His territory comprised Egypt and Syria, and consequently the
VIII. 14.]
TYRANNY OF MAXIMINUS AND MAXENTIUS.
337
how akin he was in wickedness to the ty-
rant at Rome, or rather how far he surpassed
him in it. For the chief of sorcerers and magi-
cians were honored by him witli the highest
rank. Becoming exceedingly timid and super-
stitious, he vahied greatly the error of idols and
demons. Indeed, without soothsayers and ora-
cles he did not venture to move even a
9 finger,^ so to speak. Therefore he perse-
cuted us more violently and incessantly than
his predecessors. He ordered temples to be
erected in every city, and the sacred groves which
had been destroyed through lapse of time to be
speedily restored. He appointed idol priests in
every place and city ; and he set over them in
every province, as high priest, some political
official who had especially distinguished himself
in every kind of service, giving him a band of
soldiers and a body-guard. And to all jugglers,
as if they were pious and beloved of the gods,
he granted governments and the greatest
10 privileges. From this time on he distressed
and harassed, not one city or country, but
all the provinces under his authority, by ex-
treme exactions of gold and silver and goods, and
most grievous prosecutions and various lines. He
took away from the wealthy the property which
they had inherited from their ancestors, and
bestowed vast riches and large sums of
11 money on the flatterers about him. And
he went to such an excess of folly and
drunkenness that his mind was deranged and
crazed in his carousals ; and he gave com-
mands when intoxicated of which he repented
afterward when sober. He suffered no one to
surpass him in debauchery and profligacy, but
made himself an instructor in wickedness to
those about him, both rulers and subjects. He
urged on the army to live wantonly in every kind
of revelry and intemperance, and encouraged
the governors and generals to abuse their sub-
jects with rapacity and covetousness, almost
12 as if they were rulers with him. Why
need we relate the licentious, shameless
deeds of the man, or enumerate the multitude
with whom he committed adultery? P'or he
could not pass through a city without continu-
ally corrupting women and ravishing vir-
13 gins. And in this he succeeded with all
except the Christians. For as they de-
spised death, they cared nothing for his power.
For the men endured fire and sword and cruci-
fixion and wild beasts and the depths of the sea,
greater part of the martyrdoms recorded by Eusebius in his Ulartyrs
of Palestine took place under him. (See that work, for the details.)
tjpon the so-called Fifth Edict, which was issued by him in 308, see
Mart. Pal. chap. 9, note i. Upon his treatment of the Christians
after the death of Galerius, and upon his final toleration edict, see
Bk. IX. chap. 2 sq. and chap. 9 sq.
* Literally, " a finger-nail" (oi'v^os).
and cutting off of limbs, and burnings, and prick-
ing and digging out of eyes, and mutilations of
the entire body, and besides these, hunger and
mines and bonds. In all they showed patience
in behalf of religion rather than transfer to
idols the reverence due to (iod. And the 14
women were not less manly than the men
in behalf of the teaching of the Divine Word,
as they endured conflicts with the men, ancl
bore away equal prizes of virtue. And when
they were dragged away for corrupt ])urposes,
they surrendered their lives to death rather than
their bodies to impurity.''
One only of those who were seized for 15
adulterous purposes by the tyrant, a most
distinguished and illustrious Christian woman in
Alexandria, concjuered the passionate and intem-
perate soul of Maximinus by most heroic firm-
ness. Honorable on account of wealth and
family and education, she esteemed all of these
inferior to chastity. He urged her many times,
but although she was ready to die, he could not
put her to death, for his desire was stronger
than his anger. He therefore punished her 16
with exile, and took away all her property.
Many others, unable even to listen to the threats
of violation from the heathen rulers, endured
every form of tortures, and rackings, and deadly
punishment.
These indeed should be admired. But far
the most admirable was that woman at Rome,
who was truly the most noble and modest of
all, whom the tyrant Maxentius, fully resembling
Maximinus in his actions, endeavored to
abuse. For when she learned that those 17
who served the tyrant in such matters were
at the house (she also was a Christian), and that
her husband, although a prefect of Rome, would
suffer them to take and lead her away, having
requested a little time for adorning her body,
she entered her chamber, and being alone,
stabbed herself with a sword. Dying immedi-
ately, she left her corpse to those who had come
for her. And by her deeds, more powerfully
than by any words, she has shown to all men
now and hereafter that the virtue which prevails
among Christians is the only invincible and in-
destructible possession.^
Such was the career of wickedness which 18
was carried forward at one and the same
time by the two tyrants who held the East and
the West. Who is there that would hesitate, after
careful examination, to pronounce the persecu-
tion against us the cause of such evils ? Especially
since this extreme confusion of affairs did not
cease until the Christians had obtained liberty.
■• Compare chap. 12, note 3, above.
'" Il'id.
VOL. I.
338
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VIII. 15.
CHAPTER XV.
77/1? Events which happejied to the Heathen}
1 During the entire ten years- of the
persecution, they were constantly plotting
and warring against one another.^ For the sea
could not be navigated, nor could men sail from
any port without being exposed to all kinds of
outrages ; being stretched on the rack and lac-
erated in their sides, that it might be ascertained
through various tortures, whether they came
from the enemy ; and finally being subjected
2 to punishment by the cross or by fire. y\nd
besides these things shields and breastplates
were preparing, and darts and spears and other
warlike accoutrements were making ready, and
galleys and naval armor were collecting in
every place. And no one expected anything
else than to be attacked by enemies any day.
In addition to this, famine and pestilence came
upon them, in regard to which we shall relate
what is necessary in the proper place.'*
CHAPTER XVI.
The ChaJige of Affairs for the Better.
1 Such was the state of affairs during the
entire persecution. But in the tenth year,
through the grace of God, it ceased altogether,
having begun to decrease after the eighth year.^
For when the divine and heavenly grace showed
^ TOtS eKTO?.
^ Diocletian's First Edict was issued on Feb. 24, 303; and the
persecution was brought to a final end by Constantine and Licinius'
edict of toleration, which was issued at Milan late in the year 312
(see below, Bk. IX. chap, g, note 17). The persecution may there-
fore be said to have lasted altogether ten years; although of course
there were many cessations during that period, and in the West it
really came to an end with the usurpation of Maxentius in 306,
and in the East (except in Maximin's dominions) with the edict of
Galerius in 311.
^ This passage is largely rhetorical. It is true that enough plot-
ting and warring went on after the usurpation of Maxentius in 306,
and after the death of Galerius in 311, to justify pretty strong state-
ments. Gibbon, for instance, says; "The abdication of Diocletian
and Maximian was succeeded by eighteen years of discord and con-
fusion. The empire was afflicted by five civil wars; and the re-
mainder of the time was not so much a state of tranquillity as a
suspension of arms between several hostile monarchs, who, viewing
each other with an eye of fear and hatred, strove to increase their
respective forces at the expense of their subjects" (chap. xiv.). At
the same time, during the four years between 307 and 311, though
there was not the harmony which had existed under Diocletian, and
though the interests of the West and East were in the main hostile,
yet the empire was practically at peace, barring the persecution of
the Christians.
* See below, Bk. IX. chap. 8.
> The edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and Licinius toward
the close of the year 312 (upon the date, see Mason, p. 333, note)
put an end to the persecution in its tenth year, though complete tol-
eration was not proclaimed by Maximin until the following spring.
Very soon after the close of the eighth year, in April, 311, Galerius
issued his edict of toleration, which is given in the next chapter. It
is, therefore, to the publication of this edict that Eusebius refers
when he says that the persecution had begun to decrease after the
eighth year. Maximin yielded reluctant and partial consent to
this edict for a few months, but before the end of the year he began
to persecute again; and during the year 312 the Christians suffered
severely in his dominions (see Bk. IX. chap. 2 sq.).
US favorable and propitious oversight, then truly
our rulers, and the very persons " by whom the
war against us had been earnestly prosecuted,
most remarkably changed their minds, and issued
a revocation, and quenched the great fire of
persecution which had been kindled, by mer-
ciful proclamations and ordinances con-
cerning us. But this was not due to any 2
human agency ; nor was it the result, as one
might say, of the compassion or philanthropy of
our rulers; — far from it, for daily from the be-
ginning until that time they were devising more
and more severe measures against us, and con-
tinually inventing outrages by a greater variety
of instruments ; — but it was manifestly due to
the oversight of Divine Providence, on the one
hand becoming reconciled to his people, and on
the other, attacking him^ who instigated these
evils, and sliowing anger toward him as the au-
thor of the cruelties of the entire persecu-
tion. For though it was necessary that 3
these things should take place, according
to the divine judgment, yet the Word saith,
" Woe to him through whom the offense
Cometh."^ Therefore punishment from God
came upon him, beginning with his flesh,
and proceeding to his soul.^ For an ab- 4
scess suddenly appeared in the midst of the
secret parts of his body, and from it a deeply
perforated sore, which spread irresistibly into
his inmost bowels. An indescribable multitude
of worms sprang from them, and a deathly odor
arose, as the entire bulk of his body had, through
his gluttony, been changed, before his sick-
ness, into an excessive mass of soft fat, which
became putrid, and thus presented an awful
and intolerable sight to those who came
near. Some of the physicians, being wholly 5
unable to endure the exceeding offensive-
ness of the odor, were slain ; others, as the en-
tire mass had swollen and passed beyond hope
of restoration, and they were unable to render
any help, were put to death without mercy.
- The plural here seems a little peculiar, for the edict was issued
only in the name of Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius, not in the
name of Maximin. We have no record of Licinius as a persecu-
tor before this time, and ]'",iisel)iiis' words of praise in the ninth book
would seem to imply that he had not shown himself at all hostile to
the Church. And in fact Licinius seems ruled out by § 2, below, where
'■ they" are spoken of as having " from the beginning devised more
and more severe measures against us." And yet, since Constantine
did not persecute, we must suppose either that Licinius is included
in Eusebius' plural, or what is perhaps more probable, that Eusebius
thinks of the edict as proceeding from all four emperors though
heaving the names of only three of them. It is true that the Latter is
lather a violent supposition in view of Eusebius' own words in the
first chapter of )!k. IX. I confess that I find no satisfactory ex-
planation of the apparent inconsistency.
^ i.e. Galerius.
■> Matt, xviii. 7.
I"' Galerius seems to have been smitten with the terrible disease,
which Eusebius here refers to, and wliich is described by I.actanlins
at considerable length {Pc mart. pers. chap. 33) and with many
imaginative touches (e.g. the stench of his disease ))ervades "not
only the palace, but even the whole city" !), before the end of the
year 310, and his death took place in May of the following ye.a;.
VIII. 17.]
GALERIUS' EDICT OF TOLERATION.
339
CHAPTER XVII.
TJic Revocation of iJu Rulers.
1 VVrkstling with so many evils, he thought
of the cruelties which he had committed
against the pious. Turning, therefore, his thoughts
toward himself, he first openly confessed to the
God of the universe, and then summoning his
attendants, he commanded that without delay
they should stop the persecution of the Chris-
tians, and should by law and royal decree, urge
them forward to build their churches and to
perform their customary worship, offering prayers
in behalf of the emperor. Immediately the
2 deed followed the word. The imperial de-
crees were published in the cities, contain-
ing the revocation of the acts against us in the
following form :
3 " The Emperor C?esar Galerius Valerius
Maximinus, Invictus, Augustus, Pontifex
Maximus, conqueror of the Germans, conqueror
of the Egyptians, conqueror of the Thebans,
five times conqueror of the Sarmatians, con-
queror of the Persians, twice conqueror of the
Carpathians, six times conqueror of the Arme-
nians, conqueror of the Medes, conqueror of
the Adiabeni, Tribune of the people the twenti-
eth time. Emperor the nineteenth time. Consul
the eighth time, Father of his country, Pro-
4 consul ; and the Emperor Caesar Flavins
Valerius Constantinus, Pius, Felix, Invictus,
Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribune of the
people, Emperor the fifth time, Consul,
5 Father of his country. Proconsul ; and the
Emperor Csesar Valerius Licinius, Pius,
Felix, Invictus, Augustus, Pontifex Maximus,
Tribune of the people the fourth time. Emperor
the third time. Consul, Father of his country.
Proconsul ; to the people of their provinces,
greeting : ^
6 " Among the other things which we have
ordained for the public advantage and prof-
it, we formerly wished to restore everything to
1 This edict was issued in April, 311 (see the previous chapter,
note i). There has been considerable discussion as to the reason
for the omission of Maximin's name from the heading of the edict.
The simplest explanation is that he did not wish to h.ave his name
appear in a document which was utterly distasteful to him and which
he never fully sanctioned, as we learn from Hk. IX. chaps, i and 2,
below. It is possible, as Mason suggests, that in the copies of the
edict which were designed for other parts of the empire than his
own the names of all four emperors appeared. Eusebius gives a
Greek translation of the edict. The original Latin is found in Lac-
tantius' De tnort. pers. chap. 34. The translation in the present
case is in the main accurate though somewhat free. The edict is
an acknowledgment of defeat on Galerius' part, and was undoubt-
edly caused in large part by a superstitious desire, brought on by his
sickness, to propitiate the God of the Christians whom he h.ad been
unable to conquer. And yet, in my opinion, it is not as Mason calls
it," one of the most bizarre state documents ever penned," " couched
in language treacherous, contradictory, and sown with the most viru-
lent hatred"; neither does it " lay the blame upon the Christians
because they \i2A forsaken Christ" nor aim to "dupe and outwit
the angry Christ, by pretending to be not a persecutor, but a re-
former." As will be seen from note 3, below, I interpret the docu-
ment in quite another way, and regard it as a not inconsistent
statement of the whole matter from Galerius' own point of view.
conformity with the ancient laws and public dis-
cipline'-' of the Romans, and to provide that the
Christians also, who have forsaken the religion
of their ancestors,'' should return to a good
- 7T\v Sriixo<TCav en-KjTijfiTji'. Latin: publicatit disciplinam.
3 Tcif ■yoi"6(oc Taif cavjiiv rr)!/ aipecrti'. Latin: parcnttitn su-
oriDii si-ciain. There has been some discussion as to whether
Galerius here refers to primitive Christianity or to paganism, but the
almost unanimous opinion of scholars (so far as I am aware) is that
he means the former (cf. among others, Mason, p. 208 sq.). I con-
fess myself, however, un.able, after careful study of the document, to
.accept this interpretation. Not that I think it impossible that Gale-
rius should pretend that the cause of the persecution had been the
departure of the Christians from primitive Christianity, and its ob-
ject the reform of the Church, because, although that was certainly
not his object, he may nevertheless, when conquered, have wished
to make it appear so to the Christians at least (see Mason, p. 302 sq.).
My reason for not accepting the interpretation is that I cannot see
that the language of the edict warrants it; and certainly, inasmuch
as it is not what we should a priori expect Galerius to say, we are
hardly justified in adopting it except upon very clear grounds.
But in my opinion such grounds do not exist, and in fact the inter-
pretation seems to me to do violence to at least a part of the decree.
In the present sentence it is certainly not -necessarily implied that
the ancestors of the Christians held a different religion from the an-
cestors of the heathen ; in fact, it seems on the face of it more natural
to suppose that Calerius is referring to the earlier ancestors of both
Christians and heathen, who were alike pagans. This is confirmed
by the last clause of the sentence: ad bonas mentes redirent (ci?
ayaOrji' -npoQiaiv enai'eABoiei') , which in the mouth of Galerius, and
indeed of any heathen, would naturally mean " return to the worship
of our gods." This in itself, however, proves nothing, for Galerius
may, as is claimed, have used the words hypocritically; but in the
next sentence, which is looked upon as the main support of the in-
terpretation which I am combating, it is not said that they have
deserted t/ieir ancient institutions in distinction from the institu-
tions of the rest of the world, but iNa veiernnt institnia (a term
which he could hardly employ in this unqualified way to indicate the
originators of Christianity without gross and gratuitous insult to his
heathen subjects) quce forsitan priiiiuin parentes eoruvidein con-
stiinerant, " those institutions of the ancients which percJiance
their own fathers had first established " (the Greek is not quite accu-
rate, omitting the demonstrative, and reading irporepov for pri'-
J/1H//1). There can hardly have been a " perchance" about the fact
that the Christians' ancestors had first established Christian institu-
tions, whatever they were — certainly Galerius would never have
thought of implying that his ancestors, or the ancestors of his brother-
pagans, had established them. His aim seems to be to suggest, as
food for reflection, not only that the ancestors of the Christians had
certainly, with the ancestors of the heathen, originally observed
pagan institutions, but that perhaps they had themselves been the
very ones to establish those institutions, which would make the guilt
of the Christians in departing from them all the worse. In the
next clause, the reference to the Christians as making laws for
themselves and assembling in various places may as easily be a
rebuke to the Christians for their separation from their heathen
fellow-citizens in matters of life and worship as a rebuke to them
for their departure from the original unity of the Christian Church.
Again, in the next sentence the "institutions of the ancients" (?r-
terutii iiistiiuta) are referred to in the most general way, without
any such qualification as could possibly lead the Christians or any
one else to think that the institutions of the Christian religion were
meant. Conformity to " the ancient laws and public discipline of
the Romans " is announced in the beginning of the edict as the
object which Galerius had in view. Could he admit, even for the
sake of propitiating his Christian subjects, that those laws and that
discipline were Christian? I'eteritm insiiinia '\t\ iact could mean
to the reader nothing else, as thus absolutely used, than the institu-
tions of the old Romans.
Still further it is to be noticed that in § 9 Galerius does not say
" (5/(/ «////()«^'-/i many persevere in their purpose . . . nevertheless,
in consideration of our philanthropy, we have determined that we
ought to extend our indulgence," &c., but rather " and since (at-'
q7ie cHin) many persevere in their purpose," &c. The significance
of this has apparently been hitherto quite overlooked. Does he
mean to say that he feels that he ought to extend indulgence jiist
because they do exactly what they did before — worship neither the
gods of the heathen nor the God of the Christians? I can hardly
think so. He seems to me to say rather, " Since many, in spite of
my severe measures, slill persevere in their purpose \in proposito
perseverareiit) and refuse to worship our gods, while at the same
time they cease under the pressure to worship their own God as
they have been accustomed to do, I have decided to permit them to
return to their own worship, thinking it better that they worship the
God of the Christians than that they worship no God; provided in
worshiping him they do nothing contrary to discipline {contra
discipliiiam), i.e. contrary to Roman law." Thus interpreted, the
entire edict seems to me consistent and at the same time perfectly
natural. It is intended to propitiate the Christians and to have them
pray for the good of the emperor to their own God, rather than re-
fuse to pray for him altogether. It is not an acknowledgment even
to the Christians that their God is the supreme and only true God,
but it is an acknowledgment that their God is probably better than
Z 2
340
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VIII. 17.
7 disposition. For in some way such arro-
gance had seized them and such stupidity
had overtaken them, that they did not follow
the ancient institutions which possibly their own
ancestors had formerly established, but made
for themselves laws according to their own pur-
pose, as each one desired, and observed them,
and thus assembled as separate congrega-
8 tions in various places. When we had issued
this decree that they should return to the
institutions established by the ancients/ a great
many ^ submitted under danger, but a great many
being harassed endured all kinds of death.''
9 And since many continue in the same foUy,^
and we perceive that they neither offer to
the heavenly gods the worship which is due, nor
pay regard to the God of the Christians, in con-
sideration of our philanthropy and our invariable
custom, by which we are wont to extend pardon
to all, we have determined that we ought most
cheerfully to extend our indulgence in this matter
also ; that they may again be Christians, and may
rebuild the conventicles in which they were ac-
customed to assemble,^ on condition that nothing
be done by them contrary to discipline." In
another letter we shall indicate to the niag-
10 istrates what they have to observe. Where-
fore, on account of this indulgence of ours,
they ought to supplicate their God for our safety,
and that of the people, and their own, that the
public welfare may be preserved in every place,^"
and that they may live securely in their several
homes."
no god, and that the empire will be better off if they become loyal,
peaceable, prayerful citizens again (even if their prayers are not
directed to the highest gods), than if they continue disaffected and
disloyal and serve and worship no superior being. That the edict
becomes, when thus interpreted, much more dignified and much
more worthy of an emperor cannot be denied; and, little respect as
we may have for Galerius, we should not accuse him of playing the
hypocrite and the fool in this matter, except on better grounds than
are offered by the extant text of this edict.
* e/ri Ta iiiro Toil' dpxaiioi' KaTaaTadivTa. Latin: ad veieriiin
instituta.
^ jrAcio-roi. Latin: viulti.
" TravTOious Sa.va.Tov>; vireiftepov. Latin: dilurbali simt.
^ T17 avrfi anovoia BiafievovTuv, Latin: in fropositoperscve-
raretit.
' Toil? otKOu?, iv 01? <jvvr\yovTO, (rvvBUxnv. Latin: conveniiciila
sua conipmiant.
" contra disciplitiatii, i.e. " against the discipline or laws of the
Romans." Galenus does not tell us just what this indefinite phrase
is meant to cover, and the letter to the magistrates, in which he
doubtless explained himself and laid down the conditions, is unfortu-
nately lost. The edict of Milan, as Mason conclusively shows,
refers to this edict of Galerius and to these accompanying condi-
tions; and from that edict some light is thrown upon the nature of
these conditions imposed by Galerius. It has been conjectured that
in Galerius' edict, Christianity was forbidden to all but certain
classes: "that if a man chose to declare himself a Christian, he
would incur no danger, but might no longer take his seat as a dccu-
rion in his native town, or the like"; that Galerius h.ad endeavored
to make money out of the transaction whereby Christians received
their church property back again: that proselytizing was forbidden;
that possibly the toleration of Christianity was made a matter of
local option, and that any town or district by a m.ajority vote could
prohibit its exercise witlun its own limits (see Mason, p. 330 sq.).
These conjectures are plausible, though of course precarious.
'" The Greek reads, in all our MSS., Kara iriii'Ta rpdiror, " in
every manner." The Latin original, however, reads loidigiir 7'er-
sitm. In view of that fact, I feel confident that the Greek trans-
lator must have written ronoi' instead of rpoiroi'. If, therefore, that
translator was Euscbius, we must suppose that the change to rpo-
■nov is due to the error of some scribe. If, on the other hand, Euse-
bius simply copied the Greek translation from some one else, he may
Such is the tenor of this edict, translated, 11
as well as possible, from the Roman tongue
into the Greek." It is time to consider what
took place after these events.
Thai which foUoivs is found in Some Copies i?i
the Eighth Book}
The author of the edict very shortly after 1
this confession was released from his pains
and died. He is reported to have been the
original author of the misery of the persecution,
having endeavored, long before the movement
of the other emperors, to turn from the faith the
Christians in the army, and first of all those in
his own house, degrading some from the military
rank, and abusing others most shamefully, and
threatening still others with death, and finally
inciting his partners in the empire to the gen-
eral persecution. It is not proper to pass over
the death of these emperors in silence.
As four of them held the supreme author- 2
ity, those who were advanced in age and
honor, after the persecution had continued
not quite two years, abdicated the govern-
ment, as we have already stated,^ and passed
the remainder of their lives in a common
and private station. The end of their lives 3
was as follows. He who was first in honor
and age perished through a long and most griev-
ous physical infirmity.^ He who held the sec-
ond place ended his life by strangling,'* suffering
himself have carelessly written rpoirov. In either case, however,
TOTToi' must have been the original translation, and I have therefore
substituted it for Tponov, and have rendered accordingly. I find that
Cruse has done likewise, whether for the same reason I do not know.
" Eusebius does not say whether the translating was done by
himself or by some one else. The epistle of Hadrian to Minucuis
Fundanus, quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 9, above, was translated by him-
self, as he directly informs us (see z'iid. chap. 8, note 17). This
might lead us to suppose him the translator in the present case; but,
on the other hand, in that case he directly says that the translation
was his work, in the present he does not. It is possible that Greek
copies of the edict were in common circulation, and that Eusebius
used one of them. At the same time, the words " translated as well
as possible " (Kara to Bvi'aTor) would seem to indicate that Eusebius
had supervised the present translation, if he had not made it himself.
Upon his knowledge of Latin, see the note just referred to.
t The words of this title, together with the section which follows,
are found in the majority of our MSS. at the close of the eighth book,
and are given by all the editors. The existence of the passage would
seem to imply that the work in only eight books came into the hands
of some scribe, who added the appendix to make the work more
complete. (Cf. chap. 13, note 15, above.) Whoever he was, he was
not venturesome in his additions, for, except the notice of Diocletian's
death and the statement of the manner of the death of Maximinus,
he adds nothing that has not been already said in sul)stancc by
Eusebius himself. The appendix must have been added in any case
as late as 313, for Diocletian died in that year.
" .See above, chap. 13, § 11.
' Diocletian died in 313, at the age of sixty-seven. The final ruin
of all his great plans for the permanent prosperity of the empire, the
terrible misfortunes of his daughter, and the indignities heaped upon
iiim by Maximin, Licinius, and Constantine, wore him out and at
length drove the spirit from the shattered body. According to Lactan-
tius (/V vwrt. pers. 42), "having been treated in the most contume-
lious manner, and compelled to abhor life, he became incapable of
receiving nourishment, and, worn out with anguish of mind, expired."
■* Upon the death of Maximian, see above, chap. 13, note 23.
VIII. App.]
kindnp:ss of constantius.
34 1
tlius according to a certain demoniacal predic-
tion, on account of his many daring crimes.
4 Of those after them, the last,' of whom we
have spoken as the originator of the entire
persecution, suffered such things as we have
related. l>ut he who preceded him, the most
merciful and kindly emperor Constantius," passed
all the time of his government in a manner
worthy of his office." Moreover, he conducted
himself towards all most favorably and benefi-
cently. He took not the smallest i^art in the
war against us, and j^reserved the pious that were
under him unharmed and unabused. Neither
did he throw down the church buildings, nor
devise anything else against us. The end of his
life was happy and thrice blessed. He alone at
death left his empire happily and gloriously to
his own son" as his successor, one who was in
■"' onev varaToi;, i.e. Galerius, who was the second Cjesar and
therefore the last, or lowest, of the four rulers. Upon his illness and
death, see chap. i6, above.
" Constantius was first Ceesar, and thus held third rank in the
government. The following passage in regard to him is found also
in chap. 13, §§ 12-14, above.
' i.e. Constantinu.
all respects most jirudent and pious. He en-
tered on the government at once, being pro-
claimed supreme emperor and Augustus by
the soldiers ; and he showed himself an em- 5
ulator of his father's piety toward our doc-
trine.
Such were the deaths of the four of whom we
have written, which took place at different
times. Of these, moreover, only the one 6
referred to a little above by us," with those
who afterward shared in the government, final-
ly'-' published openly to all the above-mentioned
confession, in the written edict which he issued.
' i.e. Galerius.
■' I read Aoittoi' which is found in some MSS. and is adopted by
Stephanus and Burton. Valesius, Schwegler, Laemmer and Hein-
ichen follow other MSS. in reading Atwuii', and this is adopted by
Stroth, Closs and Cruse in their translations. The last, however,
makes it govern " the above-mentioned confession," which is quite
ungrammatical, while Stroth and Closs (apparently approved by
Heinichen) take it to mean " still alive " or " still remaining " (" Der
unter diesen allein noch Ueberlebende " ; " Der unter diesen noch
allein uebrige"), a meaning which belongs to the middle but not
properly to the active voice of Aein-w. The latter translation, more-
over, makes the writer involve himself in a mistake, for Diocletian
did not die until nearly two years after the publication of Galerius'
edict. In view of these considerations I feel compelled to adopt the
reading Aoittoi' which is nearly, if not quite, as well supported by
MS. authority as Kinuiv.
MARTYRS OF PALESTINE/
The Following also 7ve found in a Certain Copy
in the Eighth Book?
It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of
Diocletian, in the month Xanthicus," which is
called April by the Romans, about the time
of the feast of our Saviour's passion, while
Flavianus* was governor of the province of
Palestine, that letters were published every-
1 On this work, see above, p. 29 sq. As remarked there, the
shorter form of the work, the translation of which follows, is found
in most, but not all, of the MSS. of Eusebius' Church History, in
some of them at the close of the tenth book, in one of them in the
middle of I'jk. VIII. chap. 13, in the majority of them between Bks.
VIII. and IX. It is found neither in the Syraic version of the His-
tory, nor in Rufinus. Musculus omits it in his Latin version, but
a translation of it is given both by Christophorsonus and Valesius.
The Germans Stroth and Closs omit it; but Stigloher gives it at the
close of his translation of the History. The English translators
insert it at the close of the eighth book. The work is undoubtedly
genuine, in this, its shorter, as well as in its longer form, but was
in all probability attached to the History, not by Eusebius himself,
but by some copyist, and therefore is not strictly entitled to a place
in a translation of the History. At the same time it has seemed
best in the present case to include it and to follow the majority of the
editors in inserting it at this point. In all the MSS. except one the
work begins abruptly without a title, introduced only by the words
KoX ravTO. fv tlvl ai'Tiypdrftui ev toJ oySow Tofxw evpofxet". '* The fol-
lowing also we found in a certain copy in the eighth book." In the
Codex Castellanus, however, according to Reading (in his edition
of Valesius, Vol. I. p. 796, col. 2), the following title is inserted im-
mediately after the words just quoted: Y,va-ef3i.ov avyypafxfxa rrepi
jCiV KaT* avTov ixaprv fifity avToiV eu Tta OKTa^T^L Ato/cArjTtarof Kat
iifx^il^ TaAepiou ToO Maftniii'oi; Sioiytx<Z. Heinichen consequently
prints the first part of this title (EOae^iou . . . /xapTupz/rrai'Twi') at
the head of the work in his edition, and is followed by Burton and
Migne. This title, however, can hardly be looked upon as original,
and I have preferred to employ rather the name by which the work
is described at its close, where we read Eucre/Siou Toi) IIani(^iAou nepi
TMV iv IlaAaiffTirr) \i.a.pivpT\(jckviiav T6A09. This agrees with the
title of the Syriac version, and must represent very closely the origi-
nal title; and so the work is commonly known in English as the
Martyrs of Palestine, m Latin as de Martyribus Palcstinre. The
work is much more systematic than the eighth book of the Church
History ; in fact, it is excellently arranged, and takes up the perse-
cution year by year in chronological order. The ground covered,
however, is very limited, and we can consequently gather from the
work little idea of the state of the Church at large during these years.
All the martyrs mentioned in the following pages are commemorated
in the various martyrologies under particular days, but in regard to
most of them we know only what Eusebius tells us. I shall not
attempt to give references to the martyrologies Further details
gleaned from them and from various Acts of martyrdom may be
found in Ruinart, Tillcinont, &c. 1 shall endeavor to give full par-
ticulars in regard to the few martyrs about whom we have any relia-
ble information beyond that given in the present work, but shall
pass over the others without mention.
2 The Martyrs oj Palestine, in all the MSS. that contain it,
is introduced with these words. The passage which follows, down
to the beginning of Chap. I., is a transcript, with a few slight vari-
ations, of Bk. VIII. chap. 2, §§ 4 and 5. For notes upon it, see that
chapter-
3 The month Xanthicus was the eighth month of the Macedonian
year, and corresponded to our April (see the table on p. 403, be-
low). In Bk. VIII. chap. 2, Eusebius puts the beginning of the
prosecution in the seventh month, Dystrus. But the persecution
really began, or at least the first edict was issued, and the destruc-
tion of the churches in Nicomedia took place, in February. See
Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3.
* Flavianus is not mentioned in Bk. VIII. chap. 2. In the Syriac
version he is named as the judge by whom Procopius was con-
demned (Cureton, p. 4). Nothing further is known of him, so far
as I am aware.
where, commanding that the churches be lev-
eled to the ground and the Scriptures be de-
stroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held
places of honor be degraded, and that the house-
hold servants, if they persisted in the profes-
sion of Christianity, be deprived of freedom.
Such was the force of the first edict against
us. But not long after other letters were issued,
commanding that all the bishops of the churches
everywhere be first thrown into prison, and after-
ward, by every artifice, be compelled to sacrifice.
CHAPTER I.
The first of the martyrs of Palestine was 1
Procopius,^ who, before he had received the
trial of imprisonment, immediately on his first
appearance before the governor's tribunal, having
been ordered to sacrifice to the so-called gods,
declared that he knew only one to whom it was
proper to sacrifice, as he himself wills. But
when he was commanded to offer libations to
the four emperors, having quoted a sentence
which displeased them, he was immediately be-
headed. The quotation was from the poet :
' The account of Procopius was somewhat fuller in the longer
recension of the Martyrs of Palestine, as can be seen from the
Syriac version (English translation in Cureton, p. 3 sq.). There
exists also a Latin translation of the Acts of St. Procopius, which
was evidently made from that longer recension, and which is printed
by Valesius and also by Cureton (p. 50 sq.), and in English by
Cruse in loco. We are told by the Syriac version that his family
was from Baishan. According to the Latin, he was a native of
/Elia (Jerusalem), but resided in Scythopolis (the Greek name of
Baishan). With the Latin agrees the Syriac version of these Acts,
which is published by Assemani in his Acta SS.Martt. Orient, ct
Occident, ed. 1748, Part II. p. 169 sq. (see Cureton, p. 52). We
learn from the longer account that he was a lector, interpreter, and
exorcist in the church, and that he was exceedingly ascetic in his
manner of life. It is clear from this paragraph that Procopius was
put to death, not because he was a Christian, but because he uttered
words apparently treasonable in their import. To call him a Chris-
tian martyr is therefore a misuse of terms. We cannot be sure
whether Procopius was arrested under the terms of the first or under
the terms of the second edict. If in consequence of the first, it may
be that he was suspected of complicity in the plot which Diocletian
was endeavoring to crush out, or that he had interfered with the im-
perial officers when they undertook to execute the decree for the
destruction of the church buildings. The fact that he was com-
manded by the governor to sacrifice would lead us to think of the
first, rather than of the second edict (see above, Bk. VTII. chap. 6,
note 3, and chap. 2, note 8). Still, it must be admitted that very
likely many irregularities occurred in the methods by which the de-
crees were executed in the province, and the command to sacrifice
can, therefore, not be claimed as proving that he was not arrested
under the terms of the second edict; and in fact, the mention of
imprisonment as the punishment which he had to expect woulil lead
us to think of the second edict as at least the immediate occasion of
his arrest. In any case, there is no reason to suppose that his ar-
rest would have resulted in his death had he not been rash in his
speech.
11
Chap. 2.]
ALPH/EUS, ZACCIIyEUS, AND ROMANUS.
343
" The rule of many is not good ; let there be
one ruler and one king.""
2 It was the seventh^ day of the month
Desius,'' the seventh before the ides of June;'
as the Romans reckon, and the fourth day of
the week, when this first example was given at
Csesarea in Palestine.
3 7\fterwards,'^ in the same city, many rulers
of the country churches readily endured
terrible sufferings, and furnished to the beholders
an example of noble conflicts. But others, be-
numbed in spirit by terror, were easily weakened
at the first onset. Of the rest, each one endured
different forms of torture, as scourgings without
number, and rackings, and tearings of their
sides, and insupportable fetters, by which
4 the hands of some were dislocated. Yet
they endured what came upon them, as in
accordance wiLh the inscrutable purposes of
God. For the hands of one were seized, and
he was led to the altar, while they thrust into
his right hand the polluted and abominable offer-
ing, and he was dismissed as if he had sacri-
ficed. Another had not even touched it, yet
when others said that he had sacrificed, he went
away in silence. Another, being taken up half
dead, was cast aside as if already dead, and
released from his bonds, and counted among
the sacrificers. When another cried out, and
testified that he would not obey, he was struck
in the mouth, and silenced by a large band of
those who were drawn up for this purpose, and
driven away by force, even though he had not
sacrificed. Of such consequence did they con-
sider it, to seem by any means to have accom-
plished their purpose.
5 Therefore, of all this number, the only
ones who were honored with the crown of
- OVK ayaObi' iroKuKOipavin] el? Kot'paro? ecrroj,
ecs ,3acrtAey?,
The sentence is from Homer's Iliad, Bk. II. vers. 204 and 205. It
was a sort of proverb, like many of Homer's sayings, and was fre-
quently quoted. As a consequence tlie use of it by Procopius does
not prove at all his acquaintance with Homer or Greek literature in
general.
3 The majority of the MSS. read " eighth," which according to
Eusebius' customary mode of reckoning the Macedonian months is
incorrect. For, as Valeslus remarks, he always synchronizes the
INIacedonian with the Roman months, as was commonly done in his
time. But the seventh before the Ides of June is not the eighth,
but the seventh of June (or Desius). In fact, a few good MSS.
read " seventh " instead of " eighth," and I have followed Burton,
Schwegler, and Heinichen in adopting that reading.
* Desius was the tenth month of the Macedonian year, and cor-
responded to our June (see the table on p. 403, below).
" On the Roman method of reckoning the days of the month, see
below, p. 402.
" We may gather from § 5, below, that the sufferings to which
Eusebius refers in such general terms in this and the following para-
graphs took place late in the year 303. In fact, from the Syriac
version of the longer recension (Cureton, p. 4) we learn that the
tortures inflicted upon Alpha:us and Zacchseus were, in consequence
of the third edict, issued at the approach of the emperor's vicennalia,
and intended rather as a step toward amnesty than as a sharpening
of the persecution (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 8). This
leads us to conclude that all the tortures mentioned in these para-
graphs had the same occasion, and this explains the eagerness of the
judges to set the prisoners free, even if they had not sacrificed, so
long as they might be made to appear to have done so, and thus the
law not be openly violated. Alphseus and Zaccha;us alone suffered
death, as we are told in § 5, and they evidently on purely political
grounds (see note 10).
the holy martyrs were Alphoeus and Zacchaius.^
After stripes and scrapings and severe bonds and
additional tortures and various other trials, and
after having their feet stretched for a night
and day over four holes in the stocks,^ on the
seventeenth day of the month Dius,'-' — that is,
according to the Romans, the fifteenth before
the Kalends of December, — having confessed
one only God and Christ Jesus as king,'" as
if tliey had uttered some blasphemy, they were
beheaded like the former martyr.
CHAPTER II.
Wh.\t occurred to Romanus on the same 1
day ^ at Antioch, is also worthy of record.
For he was a native of Palestine, a deacon and
exorcist in the parish of Caisarea ; and being
present at the destruction of the churches, he
beheld many men, with women and children, going
up in crowds to the idols and sacrificing.^ But,
through his great zeal for religion, he could not
endure the sight, and rebuked them with
a loud voice. Being arrested for his bold- 2
ness, he proved a most noble witness of the
truth, if there ever was one. For when the
judge informed him that he was to die by fire,"
'' We learn from the Syriac version that Zacchasus was a deacon
of the church of Gadara, and that Alpha;us belonged to a noble fam-
ily of the city of Elcutheropolis, and was a reader and exorcist in
the church of Ca;sarea.
8 See above, Bk. IV. chap. i6, note g.
" The month Dius was the third month of the Macedonian year,
and corresponded with our November (see below, p. 403).
^'^ \i.6vov 'iva. Oebi' /cat xptcrroi' ^o.<jiKio. '\T\ijo\}V o/xoAoyTjo'at'Te?.
BacrtAeii? was the technical term for emperor, and it is plain enough
from this passage that these two men, like Procopius, were beheaded
because they were regarded as guilty of treason, not because of their
religious faith. The instances given in this chapter are very signif-
icant, for they reveal the nature of the persecution during its earlier
months, and throw a clear light back upon the motives which had
led Diocletian to take the step against the Christians which he did.
I We learn from the Syriac version that the death of Romanus
occurred on the same day as that of Alphaeus and Zaccha;us. His
arrest, therefore, must have taken place some time before, according
to § 4, below. In fact, we sec from the present paragraph that his
arrest took place in connection with the destruction of the churches;
that is, at the time of the execution of the first edict in Antioch.
We should naturally think that the edict woidd be speedily published
in so important a city, and hence can hardly suppose the arrest
of Romanus to have occurred later than the spring of 303. He
therefore lay in prison a number of months (according to § 4, below,
a " very long time," n-Aeio-Toi' \fi6vov). Mason is clearly in error
in puttmg his arrest in November, and his death at the time of the
vicennalia, in December. It is evident from the Syriac version that
the order for the release of prisoners, to which the so-called third
edict was appended, preceded the vicennalia by some weeks, although
issued in view of the great anniversary which was so near at hand.
It is quite possible that the decree was sent out some weeks before-
hand, in order that time might be given to induce the Christians to
sacrifice, and thus enjoy release at the same time with the others.
'- There is no implication here that these persons were com-
manded, or even asked, to sacrifice. They seem, in their dread of
what might come upon them, when they saw the churches demol-
ished, to have hastened of their own accord to sacrifice to the idols,
and thus disarm all possible suspicion.
■* As Mason remarks, to punish Romanus with death for dissuad-
ing the Christians from sacrificing was entirely illegal, as no impe-
rial edict requiring them to sacrifice had yet been issued, and there-
fore no law was broken in exhorting them not to do so. At the
same time, that he should be arrested as a church officer was, under
the terms of the second edict, legal, and, in fact, necessary; and that
the judge should incline to be very severe in the present case, with
the emperor so near at hand, was quite natural. That death, how-
ever, was not yet made the penalty of Christian confession is plain
enough from the fact that, when the emperor was appealed to, as we
learn from the Syriac version, he remanded Romanus to prison, thus
344
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Mart. Pal.
he received the sentence with cheerful counte-
nance and most ready mind, and was led away.
When he was bound to the stake, and the wood
piled up around him, as they were awaiting the
arrival of the emperor before lighting the fire,
he cried, "Where is the fire for me?"
3 Having said this, he was summoned again
before the emperor,^ and subjected to the
unusual torture of having his tongue cut out.
But he endured this with fortitude and showed
to all by his deeds that the Divine Power is
present with those who endure any hardship
whatever for the sake of religion, lightening
their sufferings and strengthening their zeal.
^Vhen he learned of this strange mode of pun-
ishment, the noble man was not terrified, but
put out his tongue readily, and offered it with
the greatest alacrity to those who cut it off.
4 After this punishment he was thrown into
prison, and suffered there for a very long
time. At last the twentieth anniversary of the
emperor being near,'^ when, according to an
established gracious custom, liberty was pro-
claimed everywhere to all who were in bonds,
he alone had both his feet stretched over f\ve
holes in the stocks,^ and while he lay there was
strangled, and was thus honored with mar-
5 tyrdom, as he desired. Although he was
outside of his country, yet, as he was a
native of Palestine, it is proper to count him
among the Palestinian martyrs. These things
occurred in this manner during the first year,
when the persecution was directed only against
the rulers of the Church.
CHAPTER HI.
1 In the course of the second year, the
persecution against us increased greatly.
And at that time Urbanus ' being governor of
the province, imperial edicts were first issued to
him, commanding by a general decree that all
inflicting upon him the legal punishment, accordinc; to the terms of
the second edict. Upon the case of Romanus, see Mason, p. i88 sq.
* Valesius assumes that this was Galerius, and Mason does the
same. In the Syriac version, however, he is directly called Diocle-
tian; but on the other hand, in the Syriac acts published by Asse-
niani (according to Cureton, p. 55), he is called " Maximinus, the
son-in-law of Diocletian "; i.e. Galerius, who was known as Maxi-
mianus (of which Maximinus, in the present case, is evidently only
a variant form). The emperor's conduct in the present case is
much more in accord with Galerius' character, as known to us, than
with the character of Diocletian; and moreover, it is easier to sup-
pose that the name of Maximinus was later changed into that of
T)iocletian, by whose name the whole persecution was known, than
that the greater name was changed into the less. I am therefore
convinced that the reference in the present case is to Galerius, not to
Diocletian.
' See above, P>k. VIII. chap. 2, note 8.
" See above, Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9, and Bk. VIII. chap. 10,
note 5.
' Of Urbanus, governor of Palestine, we know only what is told
us in the present work (he is mentioned in this passage and in chaps.
4, 7, and 8, below) and in the Syriac version. From the latter we
learn that he succeeded P'lavianus in the second year of the persecu-
tion (304), and that he was deposed by Maximinus in the fifth year
(see also chap. 8, § 7, below), and miserably executed.
the people should sacrifice at once in the differ-
ent cities, and offer hbations to the idols.-
In Gaza, a city of Palestine, Timotheus en-
dured countless tortures, and afterwards was sub-
jected to a slow and moderate fire. Having
given, by his patience in all his sufferings, most
genuine evidence of sincerest piety toward the
Deity, he bore away the crown of the victorious
athletes of religion. At the same time Agapius ^
and our contemporary, Thecla,^ having exhibited
most noble constancy, were condemned as food
for the wild beasts.
But who that beheld these things would 2
not have admired, or if they heard of them
by report, would not have been astonished?
For when the heathen everywhere were holding
a festival and the customary shows, it was noised
abroad that besides the other entertainments,
the public combat of those who had lately
been condemned to wild beasts would also
- This is the famous fourth edict of Diocletian, which was issued
in the year 304. It marks a stupendous change of method; in fact,
Christianity as such is made, for the first time since the toleration
edict of Gallienus, a rctigio illicita, whose profession is punishable
by death. The general persecution, in the full sense, begins with
the publication of this edict. Hitherto persecution had been directed
only against supposed political offenders and church officers. The
edict is a complete stultification of Diocletian's principles as revealed
in the first three edicts, and shows a lamentable lack of the wisdom
which had dictated those measures. Mason has performed an im-
mense service in proving (to my opinion conclusively) that this
brutal edict, senseless in its very severity, was not issued by Dio-
cletian, but by Maximian, while Diocletian was quite incapacitated
by illness for the performance of any public duties. Mason's argu-
ments cannot be reproduced here; they are given at length on p.
212 sq. of his work. He remarks at the close of the discussion:
" Diocletian, though he might have wished Christianity safely abol-
ished, feared the growing power of the Church, and dared not per-
secute (till he was forced) , lest he should rouse her from her passivity.
But this Fourth Edict was nothing more nor less than a loud alarum
to muster the army of the Church: as the centurions called over
their lists, it taught her the statistics of her numbers, down to the
last child: it proved to her that her troops could endure all the
hardships of the campaign: it ranged her generals in the exact
order of merit. Diocletian, by an exquisite refinement of thought,
while he did not neglect the salutary fear which strong penalties
might inspire in the Christians, knew well enough that though he
might torture every believer in the world into sacrificing, yet
Christianity was not killed: he knew that men were Christians
again afterwards as well as before: could he have seen deeper yet,
he would have known that the utter humiliation of a fall before
men and angels converted many a hard and worldly prelate into a
broken-hearted saint-: and so he rested his hopes, not merely on the
punishment of individuals, but on his three great measures for
crushing the corporate life, — the destruction of the churches, the
.Scriptures, and the clergy. But this Fourth Edict evidently returns
with crass dullness and brutal complacency to the thought that if
half the church were racked till they poured the libations, and the
other half burned or butchered. Paganism would reign alone forever
more, and that the means were as eminently desirable as the end.
Lastly, Diocletian had anxiously avoided all that coidd rouse
fanatic zeal. The first result of the Fourth Edict was to rouse it."
According to the Passio S. Sabini, which Mason accepts as in
the main reliable, and which forms the strongest support for his
tlienry, the edict was published in April, 304. Diocletian, mean-
while, as we know from Lactantius {tie Mort. pers. 17) did not re-
cover sufficiently to take any part in the government until early in
the year 305, so tliat Maximian and Galerius had matters all their
own way dirring the entire year, and could persecute as severely as
they chose. As a result, the Christians, both cast and west, suffered
greatly during this period.
■* Agapius, as we learn from chap. 6, below, survived his contest
with the wild beasts at this time, and was thrown into prison, where
he remained until the fourth year of the persecution, when he was
again brought into the arena ui the presence of the tyrant Maximi-
nus, and was finally thrown into the sea.
■• y\ Kn.ff )';Ma? WficAa. Thecla seems to be thus designated to
distinguish her from her more famous namesake, whom tradition
connected with Paul, and who has pl.ayed so large a part in romantic
legend (see the Acts of I'aul and Thechi in the Aiite-N'icotr
Fathers, VIII. 487 si]., and the Diet, af Christ. Biog., s.v.). She
is referred to again in chap. 6, below, but we arc not told whether
she actually suffered or not.
Chap. 4.]
APPHIANUS.
345
3 take place. As this report increased and
spread in all directions, six young men,
namely, Timolaus, a native of Pontus, Dionysius
from Tripolis in Phcenicia, Romulus, a sub-
deacon of the parish of Diospolis,^ Passis and
Alexander, both Egyptians, and another Alex-
ander from Gaza, having first bound their own
hands, went in haste to Urbanus, who was about
to open the exhibition, evidencing great zeal for
martyrdom. They confessed that they were
Christians, and by their ambition for all terrible
things, showed that those who glory in the re-
ligion of the God of the universe do not
cower before the attacks of wild beasts.
4 Immediately, after creating no ordinary as-
tonishment in the governor and those who
were with him, they were cast into prison. After
a few days two others were added to them.
One of them, named Agapius,*' had in former
confessions endured dreadful torments of vari-
ous kinds. The other, who had supplied them
with the necessaries of hfe, was called Diony-
sius. All of these eight were beheaded on one
day at Ctesarea, on the twenty-fourth day of the
month Dystrus," which is the ninth before the
5 Kalends of April. Meanwhile, a change in
the emperors occurred, and the first of them
all in dignity, and the second retired into private
life,* and public affairs began to be troubled.
6 Shortly after the Roman government be-
came divided against itself, and a cruel war
arose among them.^ And this division, with the
troubles which grew out of it, was not settled
until peace toward us had been established
7 throughout the entire Roman Empire. For
when this peace arose for all, as the day-
light after the darkest and most gloomy night,
the public affairs of the Roman government
were re-established, and became happy and
peaceful, and the ancestral good-will toward
each other was revived. But we will relate these
things more fully at the proper time. Now let
us return to the regular course of events.
CHAPTER IV.
1 Maximinus C^sar ^ having come at that
time into the government, as if to manifest
^ A city of Palestine, lying northwest of Jerusalem, and identical
with the Lydda of Acts ix. 32 sq. For many centuries the seat of
a bishop, and still prominent in the time of the crusades. The per-
sons referred to in this paragraph are to be distinguished from others
of the same names mentioned elsewhere.
'' To be distinguished from the Agapius mentioned earlier in the
chapter, as is clear from the date of his death, given in this para-
graph.
' Dystrus was the seventh month of the Macedonian year, corre-
sponding to our March. See the table on p. 403, below.
* Diocletian and Maximian abdicated on May i, 305. See
above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 16.
'' When Maxentius usurped the purple in Rome, in the year 306.
Sec above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 21.
' On ISIaximinus and his attitude toward the Christians, see
above, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 2. He was made a Caesar at the
to all the evidences of his inborn enmity against
God, and of his impiety, armed himself for perse-
cution against us more vigorously than his
predecessors. In consecjuence, no little 2
confusion arose among all, and they scat-
tered here and there, endeavoring in some way
to escape the danger ; and there was great com-
motion everywhere.
But what words would suffice for a suitable
description of the Divine love and boldness, in
confessing God, of the blessed and truly inno-
cent lamb, — I refer to the martyr Apphianus,^
— who presented in the sight of all, before the
gates of Cffisarea, a wonderful example of
piety toward the only God? He was at 3
that time not twenty years old. He had first
spent a long time at Berytus,^ for the sake of a
secular Grecian education, as he belonged to a
very wealthy family. It is wonderful to relate
how, in such a city, he was superior to youthful
passions, and clung to virtue, uncorrupted neither
by his bodily vigor nor his young companions ;
living discreetly, soberly and piously, in accord-
ance with his profession of the Christian doc-
trine and the life of his teachers.
If it is needful to mention his native 4
country, and give honor to it as producing
this noble athlete of piety, we will do so
with pleasure. The young man came from 5
Pagae,'* — if any one is acquainted with the
place, — a city in Lycia of no mean importance.
After his return from his course of study in Bery-
tus, though his father held the first place in his
country, he could not bear to live with him and
his relatives, as it did not please them to live
according to the rules of religion. Therefore,
as if he were led by the Divine Spirit, and in
accordance with a natural, or rather an inspired
and true philosophy, regarding this preferable
to what is considered the glory of life, and de-
spising bodily comforts, he secretly left his fam-
ily. And because of his f^iith and hope in God,
paying no attention to his daily needs, he was
led by the Divine Spirit to the city of Csesarea,
where was prepared for him the crown of
martyrdom for piety. Abiding with us there, 6
and conferring with us in the Divine Scrip-
tures diligently for a short time, and fitting him-
self zealously by suitable exercises, he exhibited
such an end as would astonish any one
should it be seen again. Who, that hears 7
of it, would not justly admire his courage,
boldness, constancy, and even more than these
time of the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, May i, 305, and
Egypt and Syria were placed under his supervision.
^ Apphianus is called, in the Syriac version, Epiphanius. We
know him only from this account of Eusebius. For some remarks
upon his martyrdom, see above, p. 8 sq.
'' The modern Beirut. A celebrated school of literature and law
flourished there for a number of centuries.
■• The MSS., according to Valesius, are somewhat at variance in
the spelling of this name, and the place is perhaps to be identified
with Araxa, a city of some importance in northwestern Lycia.
546
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Mart. Pal.
the daring deed itself, which evidenced a zeal
for religion and a spirit truly superhuman?
8 For in the second attack upon us under
Maximinus, in the third year of the persecu-
tion, edicts of the tyrant were issued for the
first time, commanding that the rulers of the
cities should diligently and speedily see to it
that all the people offered sacrifices.^ Through-
out the city of Ccesarea, by command of the
governor, the heralds were summoning men,
women, and children to the temples of the idols,
and besides this, the chiliarchs were calling out
each one by name from a roll, and an immense
crowd of the wicked were rushing together from
all quarters. Then this youth fearlessly, while
no one was aware of his intentions, eluded both
us who lived in the house with him and the
whole band of soldiers that surrounded the
governor, and rushed up to Urbanus as he was
offering libations, and fearlessly seizing him by
the right hand, straightway put a stop to his
sacrificing, and skillfully and persuasively, with
a certain divine inspiration, exhorted him to
abandon his delusion, because it was not well
to forsake the one and only true God, and
9 sacrifice to idols and demons. It is prob-
able that this was done by the youth through
a divine power which led him forward, and which
all but cried aloud in his act, that Christians,
who were truly such, were so far from abandon-
ing the religion of the God of the universe
which they had once espoused, that they were
not only superior to threats and the punish-
ments which followed, but yet bolder to speak
with noble and untrammeled tongue, and, if pos-
sible, to summon even their persecutors to turn
from their ignorance and acknowledge the only
true God.
10 Thereupon, he of whom we are speaking,
and that instantly, as might have been ex-
pected after so bold a deed, was torn by the
governor and those who were with him as if by
wild beasts. And having endured manfully in-
numerable blows over his entire body, he
11 was straightway cast into prison. There
he was stretched by the tormentor with both
his feet in the stocks for a night and a day ; and
the next day he was brought before the judge.
As they endeavored to force him to surrender,
he exhibited all constancy under suffering and
terrible tortures. His sides were torn, not once
or twice, but many times, to the bones and the
very bowels ; and he received so many blows on
his face and neck that those who for a long time
had l)cen well acquainted with him could
12 not recognize his swollen face. But as he
■'' This was simply a republication in its fullness of Maxiniian's
fourth edict, which was referred to in chap. 3 (see note 2 on tliat
chapter). Kusebius does not mean to say that this was the first
time that such an edict was published, but that this was the first
edict of Maximiaus, the newly appointed Ca;sar.
would not yield under this treatment, the tortur-
ers, as commanded, covered his feet with linen
cloths soaked in oil and set them on fire. No word
can describe the agonies which the blessed one
endured from this. For the fire consumed his
flesh and penetrated to his bones, so that the
humors of his body were melted and oozed
out and dropped down like wax. But as 13
he was not subdued by this, his adversaries
being defeated and unable to comprehend his
superhuman constancy, cast him again into
prison. A third time he was brought before
the judge ; and having witnessed the same pro-
fession, being half dead, he was finally thrown
into the depths of the sea.
But what happened immediately after 14
this will scarcely be believed by those who
did not see it. Although we realize this, yet
we must record the event, of which to speak
plainly, all the inhabitants of Csesarea were wit-
nesses. For truly there was no age but be-
held this marvelous sight. For as soon as 15
they had cast this truly sacred and thrice-
blessed youth into the fathomless depths of the
sea, an uncommon commotion and disturbance
agitated the sea and all the shore about it, so
that the land and the entire city were shaken
by it. And at the same time with this wonder-
ful and sudden perturbation, the sea threw out
before the gates of the city the body of the di-
vine martyr, as if unable to endure it.^
Such was the death of the wonderful Applii-
anus. It occurred on the second day of the
month Xanthicus,' which is the fourth day before
the Nones of April, on the day of preparation.**
'J It is perhaps not necessary to doubt that an earthquake took
place at this particular time. Nor is it surprising that under
the circumstances the Christians saw a miracle in a natural phe-
nomenon.
' Xanthicus was the eighth month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded to our April (see table on p. 403, below). The mar-
tyrdom of Apphianus must have taken place in 306, not 305; for
according to the direct testimony of Lactantius {de lilori. pcrs.
chap. 13; the statement is imaccountably omitted in the English
translation given in the Antc-Nicciic Fathers) , Maximinus did not
become Caesar until May i, 305; while, according to the present
chapter, Apphianus suffered martyrdom after Maximinus had been
raised to that position. Eusebius himself puts the abdication
of the old emperors and the appointment of the new Ca;sars early
in April or late in March (see above, chap. 3, § 5, and the Syriac
version of the Martyrs, p. 12), and with him agree other early
authorities. But it is more difficult to doubt the accuracy of Lac-
tantius' dates than to suppose the others mistaken, and hence
May ist is commonly accepted by historians as the day of abdica-
tion. About the year there can be no question; for Lactantius'
account of Diocletian's movements during the previous year exhibits
a very exact knowledge of the course of events, and its accuracy
cannot be doubted. (For a fuller discussion of the date of the abdi-
cation, see 'J'illcmont's Hist, dcs Eui/i., 2d cd., IV. p. 609.) I'lUt
even if it were admitted that the abdication took place four or five
weeks earlier (according to Eusebius' own statement, it did not at
any rate occur before the twenty-fourth of March: see chap. 3,
above, and the Syriac version, p. 12), it would be impossible to put
Apphianus' death on the second of April, for this would not give
time for all that must intervene between the day of his appointment
and the republication and execution of the persecuting edicts. In
fact, it is plain enough from the present chapter that Ap])hianus did
not suffer until some time after the accession of Maximinus, and
therefore not until the following year. Eusebius, as can be seen
from the first paragraph of this work on the martyrs, reckoned the
beginning of tlie persecution in Palestine not with the issue of the
first edict in Nicomedia on Feb. 24, 303, but with the month of
April of that same year. Apphianus' death therefore took place at
Chap. 6.]
ULPIANUS, yEDESIUS AND AGAPIUS.
347
CHAl^ER V.
1 Akout the same time, in tlic city of Tyre,
a youth named Uljiianus,' after (h-eadful
tortures and most severe scourgings, was enclosed
in a raw oxhide, with a dog and with one of
those poisonous reptiles, an asp, and cast into
the sea. Wherefore I think that we may proj)-
erly mention him in connection with the mar-
tyrdom of Apphianus.
2 Shortly afterwards, yEdesius," a brother
of Apphianus, not only in God, but also
in the flesh, being a son of the same earthly
fother, endured sufferings like his, after very
many confessions and protracted tortures in
bonds, and after he had been sentenced by the
governor to the mines in Palestine. He con-
ducted himself through them all in a truly phil-
osophic manner ; for he was more highly edu-
cated than his brother, and had prosecuted
3 philosophic studies. Finally in the city of
Alexandria, when he beheld the judge, who
was trying the Christians, offending beyond all
bounds, now insulting holy men in various ways,
and again consigning women of greatest modesty
and even religious virgins to procurers for shame-
ful treatment, he acted like his brother. For as
these things seemed insufferable, he went for-
ward with bold resolve, and with his words and
deeds overwhelmed the judge with shame and
disgrace. After suffering in consequence many
forms of torture, he endured a death similar to
his brother's, being cast into the sea. But these
things, as I have said, happened to him in this
way a little later.
CHAPTER VI.
1 In tne fourth year of the persecution
against us, on the twelfth day before the
Kalends of December, which is the twentieth
ttay of the month Dius,^ on the day before the
Sabbath,- while the tyrant Maximinus was pres-
the very close of the third year of the persecution, according to this
reckoning.
* i.e. Friday, the old Jewish term being still retained and widely
used, although with the change of the Sabbath from the seventh ;o the
first day of the week it had entirely lost its meaning. Upon the
prevalence of the word among the Fathers as a designation of Fri-
day, see Suicer's Tkesauriis, s.v. napacTKtvri and I'rjo-Teiot. The
day of Christ's crucifixion was called jj-tyaXy] napaa-Kevrj, the " great
preparation."
1 The martyrdom of Ulpian is omitted in the Syriac version. It
was apparently a later addition, made when the abridgment of the
longer version was produced; and this perhaps accounts for the
brevity of the notice and the words of explanation with which the
mention of him is concluded.
^ Called Alosis in the Syriac version.
1 The month Dius was the third month of the Macedonian year,
and corresponded to our November (see table on p. 403, below).
2 n-poo-appaxou rj^epa, i.e. on Friday, irpocrdfiPaTo^ being some-
times used among the Jews as a designation of that day, which was
more commonly called Trapao-xeurj (cf. Mark xv. 42). Whether it
was widely used in the Christian Church of Eusebius' day I am un-
able to say (Suicer does not give the word) ; but the use of it here
shows that it was familiar at least in Palestine. It is said in Kraus'
Rcal-E)icyclop. d. christ. Alterth. s.v. Wochentage, to occur in a
ent and giving magnificent shows in honor of
his birthday, the following event, truly worthy
of record, occurred in tlie city of Caisarca.
iVs it was an ancient custom to furnish the 2
spectators more splendid shows when the
emi)crors were present than at other times, —
new and foreign spectacles taking the place of
the customary amusements, such as animals
brought from India or l<]thiopia or other
places, or men who couUl astonish the behold-
ers with skillful bodily exercises, — it was neces-
sary at this time, as the emperor was giving
the exhibition, to add to the shows something
more wonderful. And what should this be ?
A witness of our doctrine was brought into 3
the midst and endured the contest for the
true and only religion. This was Agajnus, who,
as we have stated a little above;'' was, with Thec-
la, the second to be thrown to the wild beasts
for food. He had also, three times and more,
marched with malefactors from the prison to the
arena ; and every time, after threats from the
judge, whether in compassion or in hope that
he might change his mind, had been reserved
for other conflicts. liut the emperor being
present, he was brought out at this time, as if
he had been appropriately reserved for this
occasion, until the very word of the Saviour
should be fulfilled in him, which through divine
knowledge he declared to his disciples, that they
should be brought before kings on account
of their testimony unto him.' He was taken 4
into the midst of the arena with a certain
malefactor who they said was charged with
the murder of his master. But this mur- 5
derer of his master, when he had been cast
to the wild beasts, Avas deemed worthy of com-
passion and humanit}^ almost like Barabbas in
the time of our Saviour. And the whole theater
resounded with shouts and cries of approval,
because the murderer was humanely saved by
the emperor, and deemed worthy of honor
and freedom. But the athlete of religion 6
was first summoned by the tyrant and prom-
ised liberty if he would deny his profession.
But he testified with a loud voice that, not for
any fault, but for the religion of the Creator of
the universe, he would readily and with pleasure
endure whatever might be inflicted upon
him. Having said this, he joined the deed 7
to the word, and rushed to meet a bear
which had been let loose against him, surren-
dering himself most cheerfully to be devoured
by him. After this, as he still breathed, he was
cast into prison. And living yet one day, stones
decree of Constantine, quoted in Eusebius' Vita Const. IV. 18; but
the text is doubtful, and at best, the use of it there proves no more
as to the prevalence of the word than its use in the present case, for
Eusebius simply gives, in his own language, the substance of Con-
stantine's edict.
3 See above, chap. 3, § i. ^ Cf. Matt. x. 18.
348
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Mart. Pal.
were bound to his feet, and he was drowned in
the depths of the sea. Such was the martyrdom
of Agapius.
CHAPTP:R VII.
1 Agaix, in Cnssarea, when the persecution
had continued to the fifth year, on the sec-
ond day of the month Xanthicus,^ which is the
fourth before the Nones of April, on the very
Lord's day of our Saviour's resurrection,- Theo-
dosia, a virgin from Tyre, a faithful and sedate
maiden, not yet eighteen years of age, went up to
certain prisoners who were confessing the king-
dom of Christ and sitting before the judgment
seat, and saluted them, and, as is probable, be-
sought them to remember her when they
2 came before tlie Lord. Thereupon, as if she
had committed a profane and impious act,
the soldiers seized her and led her to the gov-
ernor. And he immediately, like a madman and
a wild beast in his anger, tortured her with dread-
ful and most terrible torments in her sides and
breasts, even to the very bones. And as she still
breathed, and withal stood with a joyful and
beaming countenance, he ordered her thrown into
the waves of the sea. Then passing from her to
the other confessors, he condemned all of them
to the copper mines in Phjeno in Palestine.
3 Afterwards on the fifth of the month Dius,^
on the Nones of November according to
the Romans, in the same city, Silvanus^ (who
at that time was a presbyter and confessor, but
who shortly after was honored with the epis-
copate and died a martyr), and those with
him, men who had shown the noblest firmness
in behalf of religion, were condemned by him
to labor in the same copper mines, command
* i.e. April 2, 307. Eusebius is inconsistent with himself in this
case. In chap. 3, above, he states that Apphianus suffered on April
2, in the third year of the persecution. But as shown in the note on
that passage, Apphianus suffered in April, 306, and therefore, in that
case, Kusebius reckons the first year of the persecution as beginning
after the second of April. But in the present case he reckons it as
beginning before the second of April, and the latter date as falling
early in a new year of the persecution. That the martyrdom re-
corded m the present case actually took place in 307, and not in 308,
as It must have done if Eusebius were consistent with himself, is
proved, first, by the fact that, in entering upon this new chapter, he
.says, " the persecution having continued to the fifth year," implying
thereby that the event which he is about to relate took place at the
begmnmg, not at the end, of the fifth year; and .secondly, by the
fact that later on, in this same chapter, while still relating the events
of the fifth year, he recounts martyrdoms as taking place in the
month of November (Dius). This is conclusive, for November of
the fifth yc-ar can be only November, 307, and hence the April men-
tioned in the present paragraph can be only April of the same year.
Evidently Paisebius did not reckon the beginning of the persecution
in Palestine from a fixed day, but rather from the month Xanthicus
(April). As a conscciuence, the inconsistency into which he has
fallen is not very strange; the second day of April might easily be
reckoned either as one of the closing days of a year, or "as the begin-
ning of the ensuing year. In the present case, he evidently forgot
that he had previously used the former reckoning.
' i.e. on Easter Sunday. In the Syriac version, the events re-
corded in the present chapter are put on a Sunday; but that it was
Easter is not stated.
* i.e. November fifth.
* On Silvanus, who afterward became bishop of Gaza, see above.
Bk. VIII. chap. 13.
being first given that their ankles be dis-
abled with hot irons. At the same time he 4
delivered to the flames a man who was il-
lustrious through numerous other confessions.
This was Domninus, who was well known to all
in Palestine for his exceeding fearlessness.^
After this the same judge, who was a cruel con-
triver of suffering, and an inventor of devices
against the doctrine of Christ, planned against
the pious punishments that had never been heard
of. He condemned three to single pugilistic
combat. He delivered to be devoured by wild
beasts Auxentius, a grave and holy old man.
Others who were in mature life he made eunuchs,
and condemned them to the same mines. Yet
others, after severe tortures, he cast into prison.
Among these was my dearest friend Pamphi-
lus," who was by reason of every virtue the
most illustrious of the martyrs in our time.
Urbanus first tested him in rhetorical phi- 5
losophy and learning ; and afterwards en-
deavored to compel him to sacrifice. But as
he saw that he refused and in nowise regarded
his threats, being exceedingly angry, he ordered
him to be tormented with severest tortures.
And when the brutal man, after he had 6
almost satiated himself with these tortures
by continuous and prolonged scrapings in his
sides, was yet covered with shame before all, he
put him also with the confessors in prison.
But what recompense for his cruelty to 7
the saints, he who thus abused the martyrs
of Christ, shall receive from the Divine judg-
ment, may be easily determined from the pre-
ludes to it, in which immediately, and not long
after his daring cruelties against Pamphilus, while
he yet held the government, the Divine judg-
ment came upon him. For thus suddenly, he who
but yesterday was judging on the lofty tribunal,
guarded by a band of soldiers, and ruling over
the whole nation of Palestine, the associate and
dearest friend and table companion of the tyrant
himself, was stripped in one night, and over-
whelmed with disgrace and shame before those
who had formerly admired him as if he were him-
self an emperor ; and he appeared cowardly and
unmanly, uttering womanish cries and sui)i)lica-
tions to all the people whom he had ruled. And
Maximinus himself, in reliance upon whose favor
Urbanus was formerly so arrogantly insolent,
as if he loved him exceedingly for his deeds
against us, was set as a harsh and most severe
judge in this same Caisarca to pronounce sen-
tence of death against him, for the great dis-
grace of the crimes of which he was con-
victed. Let us say this in passing. A suit- 8
able time may come when we shall have lei-
sure to relate the end and the fate of those impious
^ Or " frankness "; literally, " freedom " {e\fv0fpia).
• On Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40.
ClIAl'. S.]
CRUELTIES PRACTISED BY FIRMILIANUS.
349
men who especially fought against ns,' both of
Maximinus himself and those with him.
CHAPTER VIII.
1 Up to the sixth year the storm had
been incessantly raging against us. Before
this time there had been a very large number
of confessors of religion in the so-called Por-
phyry (juarry in Thebais, which gets its name
from the stone found there. Of these, one
hundred men, lacking three, together with women
and infants, were sent to the governor of Pales-
tine. When they confessed the God of the uni-
verse and Christ. Firmilianus,^ who had been
sent there as governor in the place of Urbanus,
directed, in accordance with the imperial com-
mand, that they should be maimed by burning
the sinews of the ankles of their left feet, and
that their right eyes with the eyelids and pupils
should first be cut out, and then destroyed by
hot irons to the very roots. And he then sent
them to the mines in the province to endure
hardships with severe toil and suffering.
2 Put it was not sufficient that these only
who suffered such miseries should be de-
prived of their eyes, but those natives of Pales-
tine also, who were mentioned just above as
condemned to pugilistic combat, since they
would neither receive food from the royal store-
house nor undergo the necessary preparatory
exercises. Having been brought on this ac-
count not only before the overseers, but also
3 before Maximinus himself, and having man-
ifested the noblest persistence in confession
by the endurance of hunger and stripes, they
received like punishment with those whom we
have mentioned, and with them other con-
4 fessors in the city of Csesarea. Immedi-
ately afterwards others who were gathered
to hear the Scriptures read, were seized in Gaza,
and some endured the same sufferings in the
feet and eyes ; but others were afflicted with
yet greater torments and with most terrible
5 tortures in the sides. One of these, in
body a woman, but in understanding a man,
would not endure the threat of fornication, and
spoke directly against the tyrant who entrusted
the government to such cruel judges. She was
first scourged and then raised aloft on the
" The death of Maximinus; is related in Bk. IX. chap. lo. Noth-
ing further is said in regard to Urbanus; but the fate of his succes-
sor Firmilianus is recorded in chap, ii, below. It is (piiie possible
that Eusebius, in the present case, is referring to a more detailed
statement of the fates of the various persecutors, which was to form
the second part of the present work; and it is possible, still further,
that the appendix printed at the close of the eighth book is a frag-
ment of this second part, as suggested by Lightfoot (see above, p.
29).
1 Of Firmilianus, the successor of Urbanus, we know only what
is told lis here and in chaps, g and 11, below. In the latter chapter,
§ 31, his execution is recorded.
Stake, and her sides lacerated. As those 6
appointed for this jKirpose a])plied the tor-
tures incessantly and severely at the command
of the judge, another, with mind fixed, like the
former, on virginity as her aim, — a woman who
was altogether mean in form and contem])tible
in appearance, but, on the other hand, strong
in soul, and endowed with an understanding
superior to her body, — being unable to bear
the merciless and cruel and inhuman deeds,
with a boldness beyond that of the combatants
famed among the Greeks, cried out to the judge
from the midst of the crowd: "And how long
will you thus cruelly torture my sister?" Put
he was gready enraged, and ordered the
w^oman to be immediately seized. There- 7
upon she was brought forward and having
called herself by the august name of the Sav-
iour, she was first urged by words to sacrifice,
and as she refused she was dragged by force to
the altar. But her sister continued to main-
tain her former zeal, and with intrepid and
resolute foot kicked the altar, and over-
turned it with the fire that was on it. There- 8
upon the judge, enraged like a wild beast,
inflicted on her such tortures in her sides as
he never had on any one before, striving al-
most to glut himself with her raw flesh. But
when his madness was satiated, he bound them
both together, this one and her whom she
called sister, and condemned them to death
by fire. It is said that the first of these was
from the country of Gaza ; the other, by name
Valentina, was of Csesarea, and was well known
to many.
But how can I describe as it deserves the 9
martyrdom which followed, with which the
thrice-blessed Paul was honored. He was con-
demned to death at the same time with them,
under one sentence. At the time of his mar-
tyrdom, as the executioner was about to cut
oif his head, he requested a brief respite.
This being granted, he first, in a clear and 10
distinct voice, supplicated God in behalf of
his fellow-Christians,- praying for their pardon,
and that freedom might soon be restored to
them. Then he asked for the conversion of
the Jews to God through Christ ; and proceed-
ing in order he requested the same things for
the Samaritans, and besought that those Gen-
tiles, who were in error and were ignorant of
God, might come to a knowledge of him, and
adopt the true religion. Nor did he leave
neglected the mixed multitude who were
standing around. After all these, oh ! great 11
and unspeakable forbearance ! he entreated
the God of the universe for the judge who had
condemned him to death, and for the highest
- bfJLOeSvCjv,
350
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Mart. Pal.
1
rulers, and also for the one who was about to
behead him, in his hearing and that of all pres-
ent, beseeching that their sin toward him
12 should not be reckoned against them. Hav-
ing prayed for these things with a loud voice,
and having, as one who was dying unjustly, moved
almost all to compassion and tears, of his own
accord he made himself ready, and submitted
his bare neck to the stroke of the sword, and
was adorned with divine martyrdom. This took
place on the twenty-fifth day of the month
Panemus," which is the eighth before the Kalends
of August.
13 Such was the end of these persons. But
not long after, one hundred and thirty ad-
mirable athletes of the confession of Christ, from
the land of Egypt, endured, in Egypt itself, at the
command of Maximinus the same afflictions in
their eyes and feet with the former persons, and
were sent to the above-mentioned mines in Pal-
estine. But some of them were condemned to
the mines in Cilicia.
CHAPTER IX.
1 After such noble acts of the distin-
guished martyrs of Christ, the flame of per-
secution lessened, and was quenched, as it were,
by their sacred blood, and relief and liberty were
granted to those who, for Christ's sake, were
laboring in the mines of Thebais, and for a
little time we were beginning to breath pure air.
But by some new impulse, I know not what, he
who held the power to persecute was
2 again aroused against the Christians. Im-
mediately letters from Maximinus against
us were published everywhere in every province.^
The governors and the military prefect ^ urged by
2 i.e. July 25 (a.d. 308). See the table on p. 403, below.
• This is the so-called Fifth Edict, and was issued (according to
the Passio S. T/teodori) by Galerius and Maximinus, but was evi-
dently inspired by Maximinus himself. Mason speaks of it as fol-
lows: " It would be inaccurate to say that this Fifth Edict (if so we
may call it) was worse than any of the foregoing. But there is in it
a thin bitterness, a venomous spitefulness, which may be noticed as
characteristic of all the later part of the persecution. This spiteful-
ness is due to two main facts. The first was that Paganism was be-
coming conscious of defeat; the Cliurch had not yielded a single
point. The second fact was that the Church had no longer to deal
with the sensible, statesmanlike hostility of Diocletian, — not even
with the bluff bloodiness of Maximian. Galerius himself was now,
except in name, no longer persecutor-in-chief. He was content to
follow the lead of a man who was in all ways even worse than him-
self. Galerius was indeed an Evil Beast; his nephew was more like
the Crooked Serpent. The artful sour spirit of Maximin employeil
itself to invent, not larger measures of solid policy against his fearctl
and hated foes, but petty tricks to annoy and sting them." For a
fuller discussion of the edict, see Mason, p. 284 .sq. It must have
been published in the autumn of the year 308, for the martyrdom of
Paul, recorded in the previous chapter, took place in July of that
year, and some little time seems to have elapsed between that event
and the present. On the other hand, the martyrdoms mentioned be-
low, in § 5, took place in November of this same year, so that we
can fix the dale of the edict within narrow limits.
- 6 ToD Toif (TTpaToirefiioc apx^iv fTTiTeTay/Meuo^. Many regard
this officer as the pra;torian prefect. But we should naturally ex-
pect so high an official to be mentioned before the governors (r/yc/io-
ves). It .seems probable, in fact, that the commander in charge of
the military forces of Palestine, or possibly of .Syria, is referred to in
the present case. See Valesius' note, «</ locum.
edicts and letters and public ordinances the
magistrates and generals and notaries ^ in all
the cities to carry out the imperial decree, which
ordered that the altars of the idols should with
all speed be rebuilt ; and that all men, women,
and children, even infants at the breast, should
sacrifice and offer oblations ; and that with dili-
gence and care they should cause them to taste
of the execrable offerings ; and that the things
for sale in the market should be polluted with
libations from the sacrifices ; and that guards
should be stationed before the baths in order to
defile with the abominable sacrifices those
who went to wash in them. When these 3
orders were being carried out, our people,
as was natural, were at the beginning greatly
distressed in mind ; and even the unbelieving
heathen blamed the severity and the exceeding
absurdity of what was done. For these things
appeared to them extreme and burdensome.
As the heaviest storm impended over all in
every quarter, the divine power of our Saviour
again infused such boldness into his athletes,''
that without being drawn on or dragged forward
by any one, they spurned the threats.
Three of the faithful joining together, rushed 4
on the governor as he was sacrificing to the
idols, and cried out to him to cease from his
delusion, there being no other God than the
Maker and Creator of the universe. When he
asked who they were, they confessed boldly
that they were Christians. Thereupon Fir- 5
milianus, being greatly enraged, sentenced
them to capital punishment without inflicting
tortures upon them. The name of the eldest
of these was Antoninus ; of the next, Zebinas,
who was a native of Eleutheropolis ; and of
the third, Cermanus. This took place on the
thirteenth of the month Dius, the Ides of
November."
There was associated with them on the 6
same day Ennathas, a woman from Scytho-
polis, who was adorned with the chaplet of vir-
ginity. She did not indeed do as they had
done, but was dragged by force and brought
before the judge. She endured scourgings 7
and cruel insults, which Maxys, a tribune of
a neighboring district, without the knowledge of
the superior authority, dared to inflict upon her.
He was a man worse than his name," sanguinary
in other respects, exceedingly harsh, and alto-
gether cruel, and censured by all who knew
him. This man stripped the blessed woman of
^ Or " town clerks," ra^ovAaptoi.
•• Literally, "its athletes" (aur^;), the antecedent of the pro-
notm being " the divine power."
'' i.e. Nov. 13, 308.
" Ma^u9 is not a Greek word. Ruinart, Ada Martt., p. 327, re-
marks. An a Syr is ref>etctida, n/'iiif i/ik's jiiochos est piilica-
niis a c nsns increparc ? But ihe derivation is, to s.Ty the least,
vei-y doubtful. Cureton throws no light on the matter. Tlic word
in the Syriac version seems to be simply a reproduction of the form
foinid In the Greek original.
ClIAP. II.]
ARES, PROBUS, ELIAS, AND OTHERS.
351
all her clotliing, so that she was covered only
from her loins to her feet and tlie rest of her body
was bare. And he led her llirough the entire city
of Coesarea, and regarded it as a great thing to
beat her with thongs while she was dragged
8 through all the market-places. After such
treatment she manifested the noblest con-
stancy at the judgment seat of the governor him-
self; and the judge condemned her to be burned
alive. He also carried his rage against the pious
to a most inhuman length and transgressed the
laws of nature, not being ashamed even to deny
burial to the lifeless bodies of the sacred
9 men. Thus he ordered the dead to be ex-
posed in the open air as food for wild beasts
and to be watched carefully by night and day.
For many days a large number of men attended
to this savage and barbarous decree. And they
looked out from their post of observation, as if
it were a matter worthy of care, to see that the
dead bodies should not be stolen. And wild
beasts and dogs and birds of prey scattered the
human limbs here and there, and the whole city
was strewed with the entrails and bones of
10 men, so that nothing had ever appeared
more dreadful and horrible, even to those
who formerly hated us ; though they bewailed
not so much the calamity of those against whom
these things were done, as the outrage against
themselves and the common nature of man.
11 For there was to be seen near the gates a
spectacle beyond all description and tragic
recital ; for not only was human flesh devoured
in one place, but it was scattered in every place ;
so that some said that limbs and masses of flesh
and parts of entrails were to be seen even within
the gates.
12 After these things had continued for many
days, a Avonderful event occurred. The air
was clear and bright and the appearance of the
sky most serene. When suddenly throughout
the city from the pillars which supported the
public porches many drops fell like tears ; and
tlie market places and streets, though there was
no mist in the air, were moistened with sprinkled
water, whence I know not. Then immediately
it was reported everywhere that the earth, unable
to endure the abomination of these things, had
shed tears in a mysterious manner ; and that as
a rebuke to the relentless and unfeeling nature
of men, stones and lifeless wood had wept for
what had happened. I know well that this ac-
count may perhaps appear idle and fabulous to
those who come after us, but not to those to
whom the truth was confirmed at the time."
' This is a glaring instance of uncritical credulity on Eusebius'
part, and yet even Cruse can say. " Perhaps some mia;ht smile at
the supposed credulity of our author, but the miracle in this ac-
count was not greater than the malignity, and if man can perform
miracles of vice, we can scarcely wonder if Providence should lire-
sent, at least, miracles of admonition." Cureton more sensibly re-
CHAPTER X.
On the fourteenth day of the following 1
month Appellccus,' the nineteenth before the
Kalends of January, certain ]iersons from Egypt
were again seized by those who examined peo-
ple passing the gates. They had been sent to
minister to the confessors in Cilicia. They re-
ceived the same sentence as those whom they
had gone to help, being mutilated in their eyes
and feet. Three of them exhibited in Ascalon,
where they were imprisoned, marvelous bravery
in the endurance of various kinds of martyrdom.
One of them named Ares was condemned to
the flames, and the others, called Probus- and
Elias, were beheaded.
On the eleventh day of the month Audy- 2
nseus,^ which is the third before the Ides of
January, in the same city of Ca^sarea, Peter an
ascetic, also called Apselamus,'' from the village
of Anea,^ on the borders of Eleutheropolis, like
purest gold, gave noble proof by fire of his faith
in the Christ of Cod. Though the judge and
those around him besought him many times to
have compassion on himself, and to spare his
own youth and bloom, he disregarded them, pre-
ferring hope in the God of the universe to all
things, even to life itself. A certain Asclepius,
supposed to be " a bishop of the sect of Marcion,
possessed as he thought with zeal for religion,
but " not according to knowledge," '' ended his
life on one and the same funeral pyre. These
things took place in this manner.
CHAPTER XI.
It is time to describe the great and cele- 1
brated spectacle of Pamphilus,' a man thrice
dear to me, and of those who finished their
course with him. They were twelve in all ; being
counted worthy of apostolic grace and num-
ber. Of these the leader and the only one 2
honored with the position of presbyter at
Csesarea, was Pamphilus ; a man who through
marks: "This, which doubtless was produced by natural causes,
seemed miraculous to Eusebius, more especially if he looked upon
it as fulfilling a prophecy of our Lord — Luke .\i.\. 40 : ' I tell you,
that if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately
cry out.' See also Hab. ii. 11."
' i.e. Dec. 14, 308 (see the tables on p. 403, below).
- The majority of the codices read llpdjio?, but as Valesius re-
marks, such a proper name is quite unknown in Greek, and the form
probably arose from a confusion of /3 and m, which in ancient MSS.
were written alike. Two of our existing codices read Upo^o?, and
this has been adopted by Zimmermann and Heinichen, whom I
have followed in the te,\t.
"• i.e. Jan. 11, 309.
* In the Fyriac version " Absalom."
^ Of this village we know nothing, but Eleutheropolis (originally
Bethozabris) was an important place lying some forty miles south-
west of Jerusalem.
" eiVai SoKoJ!'. Eusebius did not wish to admit that he was a
bishop in a true sense. ~' Rom. x. 2.
' On Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VIL chap. 32, note 40.
352
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Mart. Pal.
his entire life was celebrated for every virtue,
for renouncing and despising the world, for shar-
ing his possessions with the needy, for contempt
of earthly hopes, and for philosophic deport-
ment and exercise. He especially excelled all
in our time in most sincere devotion to the
Divine Scriptures and indefatigable industry in
whatever he undertook, and in his helpful-
3 ness to his relatives and associates. In a
separate treatise on his life,^ consisting of
three books, we have already described the excel-
lence of his virtue. Referring to this work those
who delight in such things and desire to know
them, let us now consider the martyrs in order.
4 Second after Pamphilus, Vales, who was
honored for his venerable gray hair, entered
the contest. He was a deacon from ^lia,'' an
old man of gravest appearance, and versed in the
Divine Scriptures, if any one ever was. He had
so laid up the memory of them in his heart that
he did not need to look at the books if he under-
took to repeat any passage of Scripture.
5 The third was Paul from the city of
Jamna,'* who was known among them as
most zealous and fervent in spirit. Previous to
his martyrdom, he had endured the conflict of
confession by cauterization.
After these persons had continued in prison
for two entire years, the occasion of their mar-
tyrdom was a second arrival of Egyptian
6 brethren who suffered with them. They
had accompanied the confessors in Cili-
cia to the mines there and were returning to
their homes. At the entrance of the gates of
Csesarea, the guards, who were men of barba-
rous character, questioned them as to who they
were and whence they came. They kept back
nothing of the truth, and were seized as malefac-
tors taken in the very act. They were five
7 in number. When brought before the ty-
rant, being very bold in his presence, they
were immediately thrown into prison. On the
next day, which was the nineteenth of the month
Peritius,^ according to the Roman reckoning
the fourteenth before the Kalends of March, they
were brought, according to command, before the
judge, with Pamphilus and his associates whom
we have mentioned. First, by all kinds of tor-
ture, through the invention of strange and vari-
ous machines, he tested the invincible constancy
* On Eusebius' Life of Pamphilus, see above, p. 28 sq.
' i.e. Jerusalem.
* T^? '\<x\J.vl.^i^v n-oAeu?. Jamna, or Jamnia, was a town of
Jiidea, lying west of Jerusalem, near the sea.
'• i.e. Keb. 19 (see the table on p. 403, below). We learn from
chap. 7, §§ 3-5, that Pamphilus was thrown into prison in the fiftli
year of the persecution and as late as November of that year, i.e.
between November, 307, and April, 308. .Since he had lain two
whole years in prison (accordinR to § 5, above), the date referred to
in the present passage must be I'ebruary of the year 310. The mar-
tyrdom of I'arnphilus is commonly, for aught I know to tlie contrary,
uniformly put in the year 309, as the seventh year of the persecu-
tion is nearly synchronous with that year. T.ut that the common
date is a mistake is plain enough from the present chapter.
of the Egyptians. Having practised these 8
cruelties upon the leader^" of all, he asked
him first who he was. He heard in reply the name
of some prophet instead of his proper name.
For it was their custom, in place of the names
of idols given them by their fathers, if they had
such, to take other names ; so that you would
hear them calling themselves Elijah or Jeremiah
or Isaiah or Samuel or Daniel, thus showing
themselves inwardly true Jews, and the genuine
Israel of God, not only in deeds, but in the
names which they bore. When Firmilianus had
heard some such name from the martyr, and did
not understand the force of the word, he
asked next the name of his country. But 9
he gave a second answer similar to the for-
mer, saying that Jerusalem was his country,
meaning that of which Paul says, "Jerusalem
which is above is free, which is our mother," "
and, " Ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto
the city of the living (iod, the heavenly Je-
rusalem."' This was what he meant; but 10
the judge thinking only of the earth, sought
diligently to discover what that city was, and in
what part of the world it was situated. And
therefore he applied tortures that the truth
might be acknowledged. But the man, with
his hands twisted behind his back, and his feet
crushed by strange machines, asserted firmly
that he had spoken the truth. And being 11
questioned again repeatedly what and where
the city was of which he spoke, he said that it
was the country of the pious alone, for no
others should have a place in it, and that it
lay toward the far East and the rising sun.
He philosophized about these things ac- 12
cording to his own understanding, and was
in nowise turned from them by the tortures with
which he was afflicted on every side. And as if
he were without flesh or body he seemed insen-
sible of his sufferings. But the judge being
perplexed, was impatient, thinking that the
Christians were about to establish a city some-
where, inimical and hostile to the Romans.
And he inquired much about this, and investi-
gated where that country toward the East
was located. But when he had for a long 13
time lacerated the young man with scourg-
ings, and punished him with all sorts of tor-
ments, he perceived that his persistence in what
he had said could not be changed, and ]:)assed
against him sentence of death. Such a scene
was exhibited by what was done to this man.
And having inflicted similar tortures on the others,
he sent them away in the same manner.
Then being wearied and perceiving that 14
•''"' 77po^yopo9, literally " advocate," or " defender."
" G.al. iv. =6.
' Heb. .\ii. 22. Upon Eusebius' view of the authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Uk. III. chap. 25, note i.
Chap, ii.]
PAMPHILUS AND HIS COMPANIONS.
353
he punished the men in vain, having satiated
his desire, he proceeded against Pamphihis and
his companions. And having learned tliat al-
ready under former tortures they had manifested
an unchangeable zeal for the faith, he asked them
if they would now obey. And receiving from
every one of them only this one answer, as their
last word of confession in martyrdom, he inflicted
on them jiunishment similar to the others.
15 When this had been done, a young man,
one of the household servants of Pamphilus,
who had been educated in the noble life and
instruction of such a man, learning the sentence
passed upon his master, cried out from the
midst of the crowd asking that their bodies
16 might be buried. Thereupon the judge,
not a man, but a wild beast, or if anything
more savage than a wild beast, giving no con-
sideration to the young man's age, asked him
only the same question. When he learned that
he confessed himself a Christian, as if he had
been wounded by a dart, swelling with rage, he
ordered the tormentors to use their utmost
17 power against him. And when he saw that
he refused to sacrifice as commanded, he
ordered them to scrape him continually to his
very bones and to the inmost recesses of his
bowels, not as if he were human flesh but as if
he were stones or wood or any lifeless thing.
But after long persistence he saw that this was
in vain, as the man was speechless and insensible
and almost lifeless, his body being worn out
18 by the tortures. But being inflexibly merci-
less and inhuman, he ordered him to be
committed straightway, as he was, to a slow fire.
And before the death of his earthly master,
though he had entered later on the conflict, he
received release from the body, while those who
had been zealous about the others were yet
19 delaying. One could then see Porphyry,^
like one who had come off victorious in every
conflict, his body covered with dust, but his
countenance cheerful, after such sufferings, with
courageous and exulting mind, advancing to
death. And as if truly filled with the Divine
Spirit, covered only with his philosophic robe
thrown about him as a cloak, soberly and intelli-
gently he directed his friends as to what he
wished, and beckoned to them, preserving still
a cheerful countenance even at the stake. But
when the fire was kindled at some distance
around him in a circle, having inhaled the flame
into his mouth, he continued most nobly in silence
from that time till his death, after the single
word which he uttered when the flame first
touched him, and he cried out for the help of
' The reference is still to the same slave of Pamphilus whose
tortures Eusebius has just been describing, ns we learn from the
Syriac version, where the slave's name is given at the beginning of
the account.
Jesus the Son of God. Such was the contest of
Porphyry.
His death was reported to Pamphilus 20
by a messenger, Seleucus. He was one
of the confessors from the army. As the
bearer of such a message, he was forthwith
deemed worthy of a similar lot. For as soon
as he related the death of Porphyry, and had
saluted one of the martyrs with a kiss, some
of the soldiers seized him and led him to the
governor. And he, as if he would hasten him on
to be a companion of the former on the way to
heaven, commanded that he be put to death
immediately. This man was from Cappado- 21
cia, and belonged to the select band of sol-
diers, and had obtained no small honor in those
things which are esteemed among the Romans.
For in stature and bodily strength, and size and
vigor, he far excelled his fellow-soldiers, so that
his appearance was matter of common talk, and
his whole form was admired on account of
its size and symmetrical proportions. At 22
the beginning of the persecution he was
prominent in the conflicts of confession, through
his patience under scourging. After he left the
army he set himself to imitate zealously the re-
ligious ascetics, and as if he were their father
and guardian he showed himself a bishop and
patron of destitute orphans and defenceless
widows and of those who were distressed with
penury or sickness. It is likely that on this
account he was deemed worthy of an extraor-
dinary call to martyrdom by God, who rejoices
in such things more than in the smoke and
blood of sacrifices. He was the tenth ath- 23
lete among those whom we have mentioned
as meeting their end on one and the same day.
On this day, as was fitting, the chief gate was
opened, and a ready way of entrance into the
kingdom of heaven was given to the martyr
Pamphilus and to the others with him.
In the footsteps of Seleucus came Theo- 24
dulus, a grave and pious old man, who be-
longed to the governor's household, and had
been honored by Firmilianus himself more than
all the others in his house on account of his
age, and because he was a father of the third
generation, and also on account of the kindness
and most faithful conscientiousness which he
had manifested toward him.^ As he pursued
the course of Seleucus when brought before his
master, the latter was more angry at him than at
those who had preceded him, and condemned him
to endure the martyrdom of the Saviour on
the cross.^" As there lacked yet one to fill 25
up the number of the twelve martyrs of
0 I read rrept avTof with Zimmermann, Heinichen, Burton, and
Migne. The MSS. all have wepl aurous, which can hardly have
stood in the original.
1" The common mode of punishment inflicted on slaves-
VOL. I.
A a
354
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Mart. Pal.
whom we have spoken, JuHan came to complete
it. He had just arrived from abroad, and had
not yet entered the gate of the city, when hav-
ing learned about the martyrs while still on the
way, he rushed at once, just as he was, to see
them. When he beheld the tabernacles of the
saints prone on the ground, being filled with
joy, he embraced and kissed them all.
26 The ministers of slaughter straightway seized
him as he was doing this and led him to
Firmilianus. Acting as was his custom, he con-
demned him to a slow fire. Thereupon Julian,
leaping and exulting, in a loud voice gave thanks
to the Lord who had judged him worthy of such
things, and was honored with the crown
27 of martyrdom. He was a Cappadocian by
birth, and in his manner of life he was most
circumspect, faithful and sincere, zealous in all
other respects, and animated by the Holy Spirit
himself.
Such was the company which was thought
worthy to enter into martyrdom with Pam-
28 philus. By the command of the impious
governor their sacred and truly holy bodies
were kept as food for the wild beasts for four
days and as many nights. But since, strange to
say, through the providential care of God, noth-
ing approached them, — neither beast of prey,
nor bird, nor dog, — they were taken up unin-
jured, and after suitable preparation were buried
in the customary manner.
29 When the report of what had been done
to these men was spread in all directions,
Adrianus and Eubulus, having come from the
so-called country of Manganaea " to Ca^sarea, to
see the remaining confessors, were also asked at
the gate the reason for their coming ; and hav-
ing acknowledged the truth, were brought to
Firmilianus. But he, as was his custom, without
delay inflicted many tortures in their sides, and
condemned them to be devoured by wild
30 beasts. After two days, on the fifth of
the month Dystrus,^^ the third before the
Nones of March, which was regarded as the
birthday of the tutelary divinity of Ceesarea,^'^
Adrianus was thrown to a lion, and afterwards
slain with the sword. But Eubulus, two days
later, on the Nones of March, that is, on the
seventh of the month Dystrus, when the judge
had earnestly entreated him to enjoy by sacrific-
ing that which was considered freedom among
them, preferring a glorious death for religion to
transitory life, was made like the other an offer-
" Of the so-called country of yiayyavaCa T know nothing. The
Syriac version reads Batanca, which was a district of country lying
to the northeast of Palestine, and it may be that Manganea was
another name for the same region.
" i.e. March s, ^lo.
" It was the universal custom in ancient times for a city to have
Its special tutelary divinity, to which it looked for protection and to
which it paid especial honor. The name of the Cxsarcan deity is
unknown to us.
ing to wild beasts, and as the last of the martyrs
in Caesarea, sealed the fist of athletes.
It is proper also to relate here, how in a 31
short time the heavenly Providence came
upon the impious rulers, together with the tyrants
themselves. For that very Firmilianus, who had
thus abused the martyrs of Christ, after suffering
with the others the severest punishment, was put
to death by the sword.
Such were the martyrdoms which took place
at Caesarea during the entire period of the per-
secution.
CHAPTER Xn.
I THINK it best to pass by all the other events
which occurred in the meantime : such as those
which happened to the bishops of the churches,
when instead of shepherds of the rational ' flocks of
Christ, over which they presided in an unlawful
manner, the divine judgment, considering them
worthy of such a charge, made them keepers of
camels, " an irrational beast ^ and very crooked in
the structure of its body, or condemned them to
have the care of the imperial horses ; — and
I pass by also the insults and disgraces and tor-
tures they endured from the imperial overseers
and rulers on account of the sacred vessels and
treasures of the Church ; and besides these the
lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly
and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among
the confessors themselves ; also the novelties
which were zealously devised against the rem-
nants of the Church by the new and factious
members, who added innovation after innovation
and forced them in unsparingly among the calam-
ities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon
misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun
and avoid the account of these things, as I said
at the beginning.* But such things as are sober
and praiseworthy, according to the sacred word,
— "and if there be any virtue and praise,"^ —
I consider it most proper to tell and to record,
and to present to believing hearers in the his-
tory of the admirable martyrs. And after this
I think it best to crown the entire work with
an account of the peace which has appeared
unto us from heaven.
CHAPTER Xni.
The seventh year of our conflict was 1
completed ; and the hostile measures which
^ XoyiKwi'.
- " It was a punishment among the Romans that freemen should
be condemned to take care of the emperor's horses or camels, and to
perform other personal offices of that kind " (Valesius). For fuller
particulars, see Valesius' note ad locum. In the Acts of St. Mar-
celliis (who was bishop of Rome) we are told that he was set by
Maximian to groom his horses in a church which the emperor had
turned into a stable. ^ dAtiyou C,mov.
■> Cf. Hk. Vlll. chap. 2, §§ 2 and 3, and the note on that passage.
0 Phil. iv. 8.
Chap. 13.]
JOHN'S WONDERFUL MEMORY.
355
had continued into the eighth year were gradu-
ally and ciuietly becoming less severe. A large
number of confessors were collected at the cop-
per mines in Palestine, antl were acting with
considerable boldness, so far as even to build
places of worship. But the ruler of the prov-
ince, a cruel and wicked man, as his acts against
the martyrs showed, having come there and
learned the state of affairs, communicated it to
the emperor, writing in accusation what-
2 ever he thought best. Thereupon, being
appointed superintendent of the mines, he
divided the band of confessors as if by a roNal
decree, and sent some to dwell in Cyprus and
others in Lebanon, and he scattered others in
different parts of Palestine and ordered
3 them to labor in various works. And, se-
lecting the four who seemed to him to be
the leaders, he sent them to the commander of
the armies in that section. These were Peleus
and Nilus,^ Egyptian bishops, also a presbyter,-
and Patermuthius, who was well known among
them all for his zeal toward all. The com-
mander of the army demanded of them a denial
of religion, and not obtaining this, he condemned
them to death by fire.
4 There were others there who had been
allotted to dwell in a separate place by
themselves, — such of the confessors as on ac-
count of age or mutilations, or for other bodily
infirmities, had been released from service.
Silvanus," a bishop from Gaza, presided over
them, and set a worthy and genuine ex-
5 ample of Christianity. This man having
from the first day of the persecution, and
throughout its entire continuance, been eminent
for his confessions in all sorts of conflicts, had
been kept all that time that he might, so to
speak, set the final seal upon the whole con-
6 flict in Palestine. There were with him
many from Egypt, among whom was John,
who surpassed all in our time in the excellence
of his memory. He had formerly been deprived
of his sight. Nevertheless, on account of his
eminence in confession he had with the others
suffered the destruction of his foot by cauteriza-
tion. And although his sight had been destroyed
he was subjected to the same burning with fire,
the executioners aiming after everything that
was merciless and pitiless and cruel and in-
7 human. Since he was such a man, one
would not be so much astonished at his
habits and his philosophic life, nor would he
seem so wonderful for them, as for the strength
of his memory. For he had written whole books
1 On Peleus and Nilus, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 8.
Peleus is called Paul in the Syriac version.
- The name of this man is given as Elias in the Syriac version;
but both he and Patermuthius are called laymen.
3 On Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13,
note 6,
of the Divine Scriptures, "not in tables of
stone " * as the divine apostle says, neither on
skins of animals, nor on paper which moths and
time destroy, but truly " in fleshy tables of the
heart," ^ in a transparent soul and most pure
eye of the mind, so that whenever he wished he
could repeat, as if from a treasury of words, any
portion of the Scripture, whether in the law, or the
prophets, or the historical books, or the gospels,
or the writings of the apostles.
I confess that I was astonished when I 8
first saw the man as he was standing in the
midst of a large congregation and repeating
portions of the Divine Scripture. While I only
heard his voice, I thought that, according to the
custom in the meetings, he was reading. But
when I came near and perceived what he was
doing, and observed all the others standing
around him with sound eyes while he was using
only the eyes of his mind, and yet was speak-
ing naturally like some prophet, and far excell-
ing those who were sound in body, it was im-
possible for me not to glorify God and wonder.
And I seemed to see in these deeds evident and
strong confirmation of the fact that true man-
hood consists not in excellence of bodily ap-
pearance, but in the soul and understanding
alone. For he, with his body mutilated, mani-
fested the superior excellence of the power that
was within him.
But as to those whom we have mentioned g
as abiding in a separate place, and attend-
ing to their customary duties in fasting and
prayer and other exercises, God himself saw fit
to give them a salutary issue by extending his
right hand in answer to them. The bitter foe,
as they were armed against him zealously
through their prayers to God, could no longer
endure them, and determined to slay and destroy
them from off the earth because they troubled
him. And God permitted him to accomplish 10
this, that he might not be restrained from
the wickedness he desired, and that at the same
time they might receive the prizes of their mani-
fold conflicts. Therefore at the command of
the most accursed Maximinus, forty, lacking
one,'' were beheaded in one day.
These martyrdoms were accomplished 11
in Palestine during eight complete years ;
and of this description was the persecution in
our time. Beginning with the demolition of
the churches, it increased greatly as the rulers
rose up from time to time against us. In these
assaults the multiform and various conflicts of
those who wrestled in behalf of religion produced
an innumerable multitude of martyrs in every
province, — in the regions extending from
Libya and throughout all Egypt, and Syria, and
•■ 2 Cor. iii. 3. ''"' //5/i/.
'■ The Syriac version says forty.
A a 2
356
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Mart. Pal.
from the East round about to the district of
lUyricum.
12 But the countries beyond these, all Italy
and Sicily and Gaul, and the regions toward
the setting sun, in Spain, Mauritania, and Africa,
suffered the war of persecution during less than
two years," and were deemed worthy of a speed-
ier divine visitation and peace ; the heavenly
Providence sparing the singleness of purpose
13 and faith of those men. For what had
never before been recorded in the annals of
the Roman government, first took place in our
day, contrary to all expectation ; for during the
persecution in our time the empire was divided
into two parts.*^ The brethren dwelling in the
part of which we have just spoken enjoyed
" On the cessation of the persecution in the West at the accession
of Maxentius, see Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note i.
* On the division of the empire to which Eusebius here refers,
see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 17.
peace ; but those in the other part endured
trials without number. But when the divine 14
grace kindly and compassionately mani-
fested its care for us too, then truly our rulers
also, those very ones through whom the wars
against us had been formerly carried on, changed
their minds in a most wonderful manner, and
published a recantation ; ^ and by favorable
edicts and mild decrees concerning us, extin-
guished the conflagration against us. This re-
cantation also must be recorded.'"
" i.e. the toleration edict of Galerius, published in the spring of
311. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note i.
'" It would seem that the edict was originally appended to this
shorter recension of the martyrs (the longer recension is complete in
its present form, and contains no hint of such an addition). Very
likely it was dropped with the second half of the work (see above,
p. 29) as unnecessary, when the first half was inserted in the History.
The edict is given in full in Bk. VIII. chap. 17, above.
'1 Trepi Tuji' 61' IlaAai(T7ii7( /lapTupijaoiriui' TtAo;. On the title
of the work, see above, p. 342, note i.
THE END OF THE BOOK OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI CONCERNING THOSE WHO
SUFFERED MARTYRDOM IN PALESTINE
U
BOOK IX.
CHAPTER I.
The Pretended Relaxaiion.
1 The imperial edict of recantation, which
has been quoted above/ was posted in all
parts of Asia and in the adjoining provinces.
After this had been done, Maximinus, the tyrant
in the East, — a most impious man, if there ever
was one, and most hostile to the religion of the
God of the universe, — being by no means satis-
fied with its contents," instead of sending the
above-quoted decree to the governors under him,
gave them verbal commands to relax the
2 war against us. For since he could not in
any other way oppose the decision of his
superiors, keeping the law which had been al-
ready issued secret, and taking care that it
might not be made known in the district under
him, he gave an unwritten order to his gov-
ernors that they should relax the persecution
against us. They communicated the com-
3 mand to each other in writing. Sabinus,''
at least, who was honored with the highest
official rank among them, communicated the
will of the emperor to the provincial governors
in a Latin epistle, the translation of which is as
follows :
4 " With continuous and most devoted ear-
nestness their Majesties, our most divine
masters, the emperors,* formerly directed the
minds of all men to follow the holy and correct
course of life, that those also who seemed to
live in a manner foreign to that of the Romans,
should render the worship due to the immortal
gods. But the obstinacy and most unconquer-
able determination of some went so far that they
could neither be turned back from their pur-
pose by the just reason of the command, nor be
intimidated by the impending punishment.
5 Since therefore it has come to pass that by
such conduct many have brought them-
selves into danger, their Majesties, our most
powerful masters, the emperors, in the exalted
1 The toleration edict of Galerius, given in Bk. VIII. chap. 17.
2 For the reason of Maximin's failure to join with the other em-
perors in the issue of this edict, see Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note i.
3 Of Sabinus we know only what is told us here. He seems to
have been Ma.ximin's prime minister, or praetorian prefect {tw tmv
i^ox<^Ta.Tij>v eTrapxiav a^iiouaTi TtTi/uTjjicVos, Eusebius says of him) .
He is mentioned again in chap. 9, where an epistle of Maximin
addressed to him is quoted.
* Literally, "the divinity of our most divine masters, the em-
perors." The style throughout the epistle is of an equally stilted
character.
nobility of piety, esteeming it foreign to their
Majesties' purpose to bring men into so great
danger for such a cause, have commanded their
devoted servant, myself, to write to thy wisdom,^
that if any Christian be found engaging in the
worship of his own people, thou shouldst ab-
stain from molesting and endangering him, and
shouldst not suppose it necessary to punish any
one on this pretext. For it has been proved by
the experience of so long a time that they can
in no way be persuaded to abandon such
obstinate conduct. Therefore it should be 6
thy care to write to the curators " and mag-
istrates and district overseers^ of every city,
that they may know that it is not necessary for
them to give further attention to this mat-
ter."* Thereupon the rulers of the prov- 7
^ Literally, " have commanded my devotedness to write to thy
wisdom." It is clear that the communication was dictated, or at
least directly inspired, by Maximin himself.
c TOWS AoytcTTas, commonly used to translate the Latin ciiratores
urbiuin.
' Tou? crTpaTrjyous (the common designation for the chief magis-
trates of cities in the eastern part of the empire) icol tous npaiiroa-i-
Tov? Tov ndyov,
8 The MSS. all read vpan^aro?, but Valesius conjectures that
TToayp.aTO'; is the true reading, and his conjecture is supported by
Nicephorus, who has <(>povTi6a irepl xpitrTiaviJiv jroiei<rSai. Strolh
follows Valesius, and I have done the same. Heinichen remarks:
" Seii non iiecessaria, credo, est hcec emendatio, imnio eadevi/erc
exsistet sentciitici per ypdp.iJLa.To>;, hoc vtodo : ut sciettt sibi non
licere operant dare sc. ut /acile intelligitur persequendis
Ckristianis, ultra hoc scriptum, id est, magi's quatn hoc
scripto est desigitatiim." Closs interprets in the same way, translat-
ing : " dass sie sich nicht weiter, als in diesem Schreiben befohlen ist,
mit den Christen zu befassen haben." The Greek, however, does not
seem to me to admit of this interpretation (it reads iva yvwfv,
mpaiT^pio avTolt; toutou toO ypa.p.p.aTO<; ff)poi'TL&a. rroteicrffai fMrj
7rpo<T>iKei>'), and there seems to be no other alternative than to
change the word ypa.p.p,aTO<; to npayp-aTos, or at least give it the
meaning of npdyp.aTo<;, as INIason does, without emending the text
(though I am not aware that ypdp.pa can legitimately be rendered
in any such way). I am inclined to think that the word ncgotiu>'t
stood in the original, and that it was translated by the word ■npdyp.ix.
Had epistoia or littcrie been used, referring to the present docu-
ment,— and it could not well refer to anything else, — we should
expect Eusebius to translate by en-t(TToA>j, for he calls the docu-
ment an ij!i.<noKr\ in § 3, above. On the other hand, if scriptura,
or any other similar word, had been used and translated ypdp.p.a. by
Eusebius, we should have expected him to call the document a
ypdit.p.<x, not an k-ni(jToXr\ in § 3.
The general drift of the letter cannot be mistaken. As Mason
paraphrases it: " In other words, Christianity strictly is still illicit,
though in particular cases not to be punished as severely as hereto-
fore ; and the emperor, though forced for the present not to require
you to persecute, will expect you not to relax your exertions more
than can be helped." Mason justly emphasizes in the same connec-
tion the use of the words /u.r) irpotrrJKciv in the last clause, which do
not mean non licere (" it is not permitted ") as Valesius, followed
by many others, render them, but "it is not necessary," " they
need not." It is plain that Maximin made his concessions very un-
willingly and only because compelled to; and it is clear that he
suppressed the edict of Galerius, and substituted general and not
wholly unambiguous directions of his own, in order that as litile as
possible might be done for the Christians, and that he might be left
free for a future time when he should find himself in a more inde-
pendent position; he evidently did not care to compromise and
hamper himself by officially sanctioning the full and explicit tolera-
tion accorded in the edict of Galerius. For a fuller discussion of
Maximiu's attitude in the matter, see Mason, p. 309 sq. As he
358
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IX. I.
inces, thinking that the purpose of the things
which were written was truly made known to
them, declared the imperial will to the cura-
tors and magistrates and prefects of the various
districts^ in writing. But they did not limit
themselves to writing, but sought more quickly to
accomplish the supposed will of the emperor in
deeds also. Those whom they had imprisoned
on account of their confession of the Deity, they
set at liberty, and they released those of them
who had been sent to the mines for punishment ;
for they erroneously supposed that this was
8 the true will of the emperor. And when
these things had thus been done, immedi-
ately, like a light shining forth in a dark night,
one could see in every city congregations gath-
ered and assemblies thronged, and meetings held
according to their custom. And every one of
the unbelieving heathen was not a little aston-
ished at these things, wondering at so marvelous
a transformation, and exclaiming that the God
of the Christians was great and alone true.
9 And some of our people, who had faith-
fully and bravely sustained the conflict of
persecution, again became frank and bold toward
all ; but as many as had been diseased in the
faith and had been shaken in their souls by the
tempest, strove eagerly for healing, beseeching
and imploring the strong to stretch out to them
a saving hand, and supplicating God to be
10 merciful unto them. Then also the noble
athletes of religion who had been set free
from their sufferings in the mines returned to
their own homes. Happily and joyfully they
passed through every city, full of unspeakable
pleasure and of a boldness which cannot
11 l)e expressed in words. Great crowds of
men pursued their journey along the high-
ways and through the market-places, praising
Goil with hymns and psalms. And you might
have seen those who a little while before had
been driven in bonds from their native countries
under a most cruel sentence, returning with
bright and joyful faces to their own firesides ;
so that even they who had formerly thirsted for
our blood, when they saw the unexpected won-
der, congratulated us on what had taken place.
CHAPTER II.
The Siihsequent Reverse.
Rut the tyrant who, as we have said,
ruled over the districts of the Orient, a
remarks, it is " almost a wonder that the judyes interpreted Maxi-
miii's document in a sense so favorable to the brotherhood as they
really did. Though no cfTettual .security was given against the re-
currence of the late atrocities, the I'er.secutinn of Diocletian was at
an end, even in the East. The subordinate fifficcrs issued and posted
1 ical mandates, which conceded more tlian they were bidden to
concede," " tois /car' dypoi/j «7rtTeToyfit;'0is,
thorough hater of the good and an enemy of
every virtuous person, as he was, could no longer
bear this ; and indeed he did not permit matters
to go on in this way quite six months.^ Devis-
ing all possible means of destroying the peace,
he first attempted to restrain us, under a pre-
text," from meeting in the cemeteries.
Then through the agency of some wicked 2
men he sent an embassy to himself against
us,^ inciting the citizens of Antioch to ask from
him as a very great favor that he would by no
means permit any of the Christians to dwell in
their country ; and others were secretly induced
to do the same thing. The author of all this in
Antioch was Theotecnus,'' a violent and wicked
man, who was an impostor, and whose character
was foreign to his name.^ He appears to have
been the curator " of the city.
1 The Edict of Galerius was issued in April, 311 (see Lactantius,
dc I\[iirt. pcrs. 35, and Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note i, above), so that
Ma.vimin's change of policy, recorded in this chapter, must have
begun in October, or thereabouts. Valesius supposes that the death
of CJalerius was the cause of Maximin's return to persecuting meas-
ures. But Galerius died, not some months after the issue of the
edict, as Valesius, and others after him, assert, but within a few
days after it, as is directly stated by Lactantius [ibid.), whose ac-
curacy in this case there is no reason to question. Another mis-
statement made by Valesius in the same connection, and repeated
by Heinichen, Cruse, and others, is that jNIaximin became Augustus
only after the death of Galerius. The truth is, he was recognized
as an Augustus in 308 (see Lactantius, ibid. chap. 32; and Bk. VIIL
chap. 13, note 22, above). The cause of the renewal of the persecu-
tion seems to have been simply impatience at the exultation of the
Church and at the wonderful recuperative power revealed the moment
the pressure was taken off. That it was not renewed sooner was
doubtless due to the more important matters which engaged the
attention of Maximinus immediately after the death of Galerius, in
connection with the division of the Eastern Empire between himself
and Liciuius (see Lactantius, ibid. chap. 36). It would seem from
the passage just referred to, that as soon as these matters were satis-
factorily adjusted, INLaximin turned his attention again to the Chris-
tians, and began to curtail their liberty.
- Very likely under the pretext that night gatherings at the
tombs of the martyrs, with the excitement and enthusiasm neces-
sarily engendered under such circumstances, were of immoral ten-
dency. Naturally, the honor shown by the Christians to their
fellows who had been put to death at the command of the state was
looked upon as an insult to the authorities, and could not but be very
distasteful to them. They imagined that such meetings would only
tend to foster discontent and disloyalty on the part of those who en-
gaged in them, and consequently they were always suspicious of
them.
3 The same account is given by Lactantius, ibid. chap. 36
(" First of all he took away the toleration and general protection
granted by Galerius to the Christians, and, for this end, he secretly
procured addres.ses for the different cities, requesting that no Chris-
tian church might be built within their walls; and thus he meant to
make that which was his own choice appear as if extorted from bun by
importunity "). It is possible that the account is correct, but it is more
probable that the embassies were genuine, and were voluntarily sent
to the emperor, while he was on a tour through his dominions, by the
pagan popidation of some of the cities who knew the emperor's own
position in the matter, and desired to conciliate him and secure
favors from him. Of course such deputations would delight him
greatly; and what one city did, others would feel compelled to do
also, in order not to seem behindhand in religious zeal and in order
not to run the risk of offending the emperor, who since the death of
Galerius was of course a more absolute master than before. Cf.
Mason, p. 313 sq.
1 Theotecnus, according to the Passion of Si. Theodqtus (trans-
lated in Mason, p. 354 sqO an apostate from Christianity, was for
some time chief magistrate of Galatia, where he indulged in the iiiost
terrible cruelties against the Christians. Beyond the account given
ill the I'assifln referred to we know in regard to Theotecnu,s only
what is told us by Eusebius in the present book, in which he is fre-
c|uenily mentioned. His hatred of the Christians knew no bounds.
He seems, moreover, to have been something of a philosopher and
literary man (Mason calls him a Neo-Platonist, and makes him the
author of the anti-Christian Acta Pilati ; but see below, chap, s,
note i). He was executed by command of Licinius, after the death
of Maximinus (see below, chap. 11).
^' H(-()TtKc(K, " chdd of Tjod."
" The Aoyio-rac, or curatoris urbiuiii, were the chief fmame
officers of municipalities. See Val^ius' note on Bk. VIIL chap. 11.
IX. 5.]
FORGED ACTS OF PILATE.
359
CHAPTER III.
The Neii'ly Erected Statue at Antioch.
After this man liad carried on all kinds of
war against us and had caused our people to be
diligently hunted up in their retreats, as if they
were unholy thieves, antl had devised every sort
of slander and accusation against us, and become
the cause of death to vast numbers, he finally
erected a statue of Jupiter Philius ' with certain
juggleries and magic rites. And after inventing
unholy forms of initiation and ill-omened myster-
ies in connection with it, and abominable means
of purification,^ he exhibited his jugglery, by
oracles which he pretended to utter, even to
the emperor ; and through a flattery which was
pleasing to the ruler he aroused the demon
against the Christians and said that the god had
given command to expel the Christians as his
enemies beyond the confines of the city and the
neighboring districts.
CHAPTER IV.
.' 1
The Memorials against us.
1 The fact that this man, who took the
lead in this matter, had succeeded in his
purpose was an incitement to all the other
officials in the cities under the same govern-
ment to prepare a similar memorial.^ And
the governors of the provinces perceiving that
this was agreeable to the emperor suggested to
their subjects that they should do the same.
2 And as the tyrant by a rescript declared
himself well pleased with their measures,''
persecution was kindled anew against us. Priests
for the images were then appointed in the cities,
and besides them high priests by Maximinus
himself.^ The latter were taken from among
1 Jupiter Philius, the god of friendship or good-will, was widely-
honored in the East. He seems to have been the tutelary divinity
of Antioch, and, according to Valesius, a temple of his at Antioch is
mentioned by the emperor Julian and by Libanius.
2 " The ceremonies of the Gentiles, used in the erection and con-
secration of images to their gods, were various. Jupiter Ctesius
was consecrated with one sort of rites, Herceus with another, and
Philius with a third sort" (Valesius). For farther particulars, see
his note ad locum.
' wepi TMV KaO' TjixCiV i|/7((/)i(r(iiaTwi'.
* Lactantius (I'/u'J. chap. 36) says: " In compliance with those
addresses he [Maximinus] introduced a new mode of government
in things respecting religion, and for each city he created a high
priest, chosen from among the persons of most distinction. The
office of those men was to make daily sacrifices to all their gods,
and, with the aid of the former priests, to prevent the Christians
from erecting churches, or from worshiping God, either publicly or
in private; and he authorized them to compel the Christians to sac-
rifice to idols, and, on their refusal, to bring them before the civil
magistrate; and, as if this had not been enough, in every province
he established a superintendent priest, one of chief eminence in the
state; and he commanded that all those priests newly instituted
should appear in white habits, that being the most honorable dis-
tinction of dress." Maximin perceived the power that existed in
the Catholic Church with its wonderful organization, and conceived
the stupendous idea of rejuvenating paganism by creating a pagan
Catholic Church. The Roman religion should cease to be the loose,
unorganized, chaotic thing it had always been, and should be made
those who were most distinguished in public life
and had gained celebrity in all the offices which
they had filled ; and who were imbued, moreover,
with great /x'al for the service of those whom
they worshiped. Indeed, the extraordinary 3
superstition of the em]>cror, to speak in brief,
led all his subjects, both rulers and private citi-
zens, for the sake of gratifying him, to do every-
thing against us, supposing that they could best
show their gratitude to him for the benefits which
they had receivetl from him, by plotting murder
against us and exhibiting toward us any new
signs of malignity.
CHAPTER V.
The Forged Acts.
Having therefore forged Acts of Pilate ^ 1
and our Saviour full of every kind of blas-
phemy against Christ, they sent them with the
emperor's approval to the whole of the empire
subject to him, with written commands that they
should be openly posted to the view of all in
every place, both in country and city, and that
the schoolmasters should give them to their
scholars, instead of their customary lessons,
to be studied and learned by heart. While 2
these things were taking place, another
military commander, whom the Romans call
Dux,^ seized some infamous women in the mar-
ket-place at Damascus in Phanicia,^' and by
threatening to inflict tortures upon them com-
pelled them to make a written declaration that
a positive aggressive power over against Christianity by giving it a
regular organization and placing the entire institution in the hands
of honorable and able men, whose business it should be to increase
its stability and power in every way and in all quarters. We are
compelled to admire the wisdom of Maximin's plan. No persecutor
before him had ever seen the need of thus replacing the Christian
Church by another institution as great and as splendid as itself.
The effort, like that of Julian a half-century later, must remain
memorable in the annals of the conflict of paganism with Chris-
tianity.
1 These Acts are no longer extant, but their character can be
gathered from this chapter. They undoubtedly contained the worst
calumnies against Christ's moral and religious character. They
cannot have been very skillful forgeries, for Eusebius, in P.k. I. chap.
9, above, points out a palpable chronological blunder which stamped
them as fictitious on their very face. And yet they doubtless an-
swered every purpose; for few of the heathen would be in a position
to detect such an error, and perhaps fewer still would care to expose
it if they discovered it. These Acts are of course to be distinguished
from the numerous Ada Pilaii which proceeded from Christian
sources (see above, Bk. II. chap. 2, note i). The way in which
these Acts were employed was diabolical in its very shrewdness.
Certainly there was no more effectual way of checking the spread of
Christianity than systematically and persistently to train up the
youth of the empire to look with contempt and disgust upon the
founder of Christianity, the Christian's Saviour and Lord. Incal-
culable mischief must inevitably have been produced had Maximin's
reign lasted for a number of years. As it was, we can imagine the
horror of the Christians at this new and sacrilegious artifice of the
enemy. Mason assigns "the crowning, damning honor of this
masterstroke " to Theotecnus, but I am unable to find any proof that
he was the author of the documents. It is, of course, not impossible
nor improbable that he was; but had Eusebius known him to be the
author, he would certainly have informed us. As it is, his state-
ment is entirely indefinite, and the Acts are not brought into any
connection with Theotecnus.
- The commandant of the Roman garrison in Damascus.
2 Damascus, from the time of Hadrian (according to Spruner-
Menke), orof Severus (according to Mommsen). was thi- rnpi: d uf
the newly formed province of Syria-Phoenice, or Syro-Phocnicia.
36o
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
Iix. s.
they had once been Christians and that they
were acquainted with their impious deeds, — that
in their very churches they committed hcentious
acts ; and they uttered as many other slanders
against our rehgion as he wished them to. Hav-
ing taken down their words in writing, he com-
municated them to the emperor, who command-
ed that these documents also should be published
in every place and city.
CHAPTER VI.
Those who suffered Martyrdom at this Time.
1 Not long afterward, however, this mili-
tary commander became his own murderer
and paid the penalty for his wickedness. But
we were obliged again to endure exile and se-
vere persecutions, and the governors in every
province were once more terribly stirred up
against us ; so that even some of those illustri-
ous in the Divine Word were seized and had
sentence of death pronounced upon them with-
out mercy. Three of them in the city of
Emesa ^ in Phoenicia, having confessed that they
were Christians, were thrown as food to the
wild beasts. Among them was a bishop Silva-
nus," a very old man, who had filled his
2 office full forty years. At about the same
time Peter ^ also, who presided most illustri-
ously over the parishes in Alexandria, a divine
example of a bishop on account of the excel-
lence of his hfe and his study of the sacred
Scriptures, being seized for no cause and quite
unexpectedly, was, as if by command of Maxi-
minus, immediately and without explanation,
beheaded. With him also many other bish-
3 ops of Egypt suffered the same fate. And
Lucian,* a presbyter of the parish at An-
tioch, and a most excellent man in every respect,
temperate in life and famed for his learning in
sacred things, was brought to the city of Nico-
media, where at that time the emperor hap-
' Emesa was an important city in Northern Phcenicia, the birth-
place of the Emperor Elagabalus, and chiefly famous for its great
temple of the Sun.
- On Silvanus, bishop of Emesa, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13,
note 4.
' On Peter, bishop of Alexandria, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32,
note 54. According to that chapter he suffered in the ninth year of
the persecution; that is, at least as early as April, 312.
* The presbyter Lucian, who is mentioned also in 15k. VIII. chap.
13, above, was one of the greatest scholars of the early Churcli, and
with Dorotheas (see above, Hk. VII. chap. 32, note q) at the head
of the famous theological school at Antioch. He produced a revised
version of the LXX, which enjoyed a wide circulation (see Jerome's
de tiir. ill. 77, and Westcott's Hist. 0/ the N. T. Canon, p. 392 sq.) ;
and al.so wrote some books on Faith (see Jerome, ibid.), some epis-
tles (see ibid., and Suidas, s.t.), and a commentary on Job, of
which a Latin fr.agment has been preserved and is given by Koulh,
Rcl. Sacra, IV. p. 7-10. His works have perished, with the ex-
ception of a brief fragment of an epistle, the fragment from his com-
mentary on Job just referred to, and a part of his defense before
Maximmus (referred to in the present chapter) which is preser\xd
by Rufinus, //. E. IX. 6, and is probably genuine (cf. Westcott,
ibid. p. 393). These extant fragments are given, with annotations,
l>y Routn, ibid. p. 5 s<). Lucian's chief historical significance lies
in his relation to Arianism. On this subject, see above, p. 11 sq.
pened to be staying, and after delivering be-
fore the ruler an apology for the doctrine which
he professed, was committed to prison and
put to death. Such trials were brought 4
upon us in a brief time by Maximinus, the
enemy of virtue, so that this persecution which
was stirred up against us seemed far more cruel
than the former.
CHAPTER Vn.
The Decree against us which was engraved on
PiUars.
The memorials against us ^ and copies of 1
the imperial edicts issued in reply to them
were engraved and set up on brazen pillars in
the midst of the cities," — a course which had
never been followed elsewhere. The children
in the schools had daily in their mouths the
names of Jesus and Pilate, and the Acts which
had been forged in wanton insolence.^
It appears to me necessary to insert here 2
this document of Maximinus which was
posted on pillars, in order that there may be
made manifest at the same time the boastful and
haughty arrogance of the God-hating man, and
the sleepless evil-hating divine vengeance upon
the impious, which followed close upon him, and
under whose pressure he not long afterward took
the opposite course in respect to us and con-
firmed it by written laws.'*
The rescript is in the following words :
Copy of a translation of the rescript of Maxi-
minus in answer to the memorials against us,
takejifrom the pillar in Tyre.
" Now at length the feeble power of the 3
human mind has become able to shake off
and to scatter every dark mist of error, which
before this besieged the senses of men, who
were more miserable than impious, and envel-
oped them in dark and destructive ignorance ;
and to perceive that it is governed and estab-
1 See above, chaps. 2 and 4.
- These decrees must have been published in this way in June,
312, or thereabouts; for in chap. 10, § 12, we learn that they were
thus made public a little less than a year before the final edict of
toleration, which was apparently issued in May, 313.
' See chap. 5.
4 OUK ct9 fxaKpov TavavTia Trepi t/juwi' e/3ovAeiJo"rtTO re Kai Sl
eyypd<j>ojv I'd/iiui' eSo-yfiaTure. Cruse translates, " So that he did not
long devise hostilities and form decrees against us." It is true that the
phrase ovk «i? taaKpov may in general bear the meaning " not for
long," as well as " not long afterward"; but an examination of the
numerous passages in which the words are used by Eusebius (e.g.
I. II. i; I. 13. 4; II. 6. 5; II. 7; III. 5. 7; ly. 7. 12; VII. 13. i)
will show that, with a single exception, he uniformly employs them
in the sense of" not long afterward." The single exception occurs
in Bk. IV. chap. 7, § 12, where the phrase is clearly used with the
other meaning — " not for long." In view of this preponderance of
instances for the former use of the jihrase in this single work, it seems
best in the present ca.se — the only doubtful one, .so far as I am aware
— to follow Valesius, Stroth, and Closs in translating "not long
afterward," which is in full accord with the context, and more in
harmony than the other reading with the structure of this particular
sentence.
IX. S.]
DFXREE OF MAXIMIN ENGRAVED ON PILLARS.
361
lished by the beneficent providence of the
4 immortal gods. It passes beUef how grate-
ful, how pleasing and how agreeable it is
to lis, that you have given a most tlecided proof
of your pious resolution ; for even before this
it was known to every one how much regard
and reverence you were paying to the immortal
gods, exhibiting not a faith of bare and empty
words, but continued and wonderful exam-
5 pies of illustrious deeds. Wherefore your city
may justly be called a seat and dwelling of
the immortal gods. At least, it appears by many
signs that it flourishes because of the pres-
6 ence of the celestial gods. Behold, there-
fore, your city, regardless of all private
advantages, and omitting its former petitions in
its own behalf, when it perceived that the adhe-
rents of that execrable vanity were again begin-
ning to spread, and to start the greatest con-
flagration,— like a neglected and extinguished
funeral pile when its brands are rekindled, —
immediately resorted to our piety as to a metrop-
olis of all religiousness, asking some remedy
7 and aid. It is evident that the gods have
given you this saving mind on account of
your faith and piety.
"Accordingly that supreme and mightiest
Jove, who presides over your illustrious city, who
preserves your ancestral gods, your wives and
children, your hearths and homes from every
destructive pest, has infused into your souls this
wholesome resolve ; showing and proving how
excellent and glorious and salutary it is to ob-
serve with the becoming reverence the worship
and sacred rites of the immortal gods.
8 For who can be found so ignorant or so
devoid of all understanding as not to per-
ceive that it is due to the kindly care of the gods
that the earth does not refuse the seed sown in it,
nor disappoint the hope of the husbandmen with
vain expectation ; that impious war is not inevita-
bly fixed upon earth, and wasted bodies dragged
down to death under the influence of a corrupted
atmosphere ; that the sea is not swollen and raised
on high by blasts of intemperate winds ; that
unexpected hurricanes do not burst forth and
stir up the destructive tempest ; moreover, that
the earth, the nourisher and mother of all, is not
shaken from its lowest depths with a terrible
tremor, and that the mountains upon it do not
sink into the opening chasms. No one is ig-
norant that all these, and evils still worse than
these, have oftentimes happened hitherto.
3 And all these misfortunes have taken place
on account of the destructive error of the
empty vanity of those impious men, when it
prevailed in their souls, and, we may almost say,
weighed down the whole world with shame."
10 After other words he adds : " Let them look
at the standing crops already flourishing
with waving heads in the broad fields, and at the
meadows glittering with ])lants and flowers, in
response to abundant rains and the restored
mildness and softness of the atmosphere.
Finally, let all rejoice that the might of the 11
most powerful and terrible Mars has been
propitiated by our piety, our sacrifices, and our
veneration ; and let them on this account enjoy
firm and tranquil peace and quiet ; and let as
many as have wholly abandoned that blind error
and delusion and have returned to a right and
sound mind rejoice the more, as those who have
been rescued from an unexpected storm or
severe disease and are to reap the fruits of
pleasure for the rest of their hfe. But if 12
they still persist in their execrable vanity, let
them, as you have desired, be driven far away
from your city and territory, that thus, in accord-
ance with your praiseworthy zeal in this matter,
your city, being freed from every pollution and
impiety, may, according to its native disposition,
attend to the sacred rites of the immortal
gods with becoming reverence. But that ye 13
may know how acceptable to us your request
respecting this matter has been, and how ready
our mind is to confer benefits voluntarily, with-
out memorials and petitions, we permit your de-
votion to ask whatever great gift ye may desire
in return for this your pious disposition.
And now ask that this may be done and 14
that ye may receive it ; for ye shall obtain
it without delay. This, being granted to your
city, shall furnish for all time an evidence of
reverent piety toward the immortal gods, and
of the fact that you have obtained from our
benevolence merited prizes for this choice of
yours ; and it shall be shown to your children
and children's children."
This was published against us in all the 15
provinces, depriving us of every hope of good,
at least from men ; so that, according to that
divine utterance, " If it were possible, even the
elect would have stumbled "'^ at these things.
And now indeed, when the hope of most of 16
us was almost extinct, suddenly while those
who were to execute against us the above decree
had in some places scarcely finished their jour-
ney, God, the defender of his own Church, ex-
hibited his heavenly interposition in our behalf,
well-nigh stopping the tyrant's boasting against
us.
CHAPTER VIII.
The Misfortunes 7vhich happened in Connection
with these Things, in Famine, Pestilence, and
War.
The customary rains and showers of the 1
winter season ceased to fall in their wonted
" Matt. xxiv. 24.
362
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBHJS.
tlX. 8.
abundance upon the earth and an unexpected
famine made its appearance, and in addition to
this a pestilence, and another severe disease
consisting of an ulcer, which on account of its
fiery appearance was appropriately called a car-
buncle.' This, spreading over the whole body,
greatly endangered the lives of those who suf-
fered from it ; but as it chiefly attacked the
eyes, it deprived multitudes of men, women,
2 and children of their sight. In addition to
this the tyrant was compelled to go to war
with the Armenians, who had been from ancient
times friends and allies of the Romans, As they
were also Christians ^ and zealous in their piety
toward the Deity, the enemy of God had at-
tempted to compel them to sacrifice to idols
and demons, and had thus made friends
3 foes, and allies enemies. All these things
suddenly took place at one and the same
time, and refuted the tyrant's empty vaunt
against the Deity. For he had boasted that,
because of his zeal for idols and his hostility
against us, neither famine nor pestilence nor
war had happened in his time.^ These things,
therefore, coming upon him at once and to-
gether, furnished a prelude also of his own
4 destruction. He himself with his forces
was defeated in the war with the Armenians,
and the rest of the inhabitants of the cities
under him were terribly afflicted with famine
and pestilence, so that one measure of wheat
was sold for twenty-five hundred Attic
5 drachms.* Those who died in the cities
were innumerable, and those who died in
the country and villages were still more. So
that the tax lists which formerly included a great
rural population were almost entirely wiped
out ; nearly all being speedily destroyed by fam-
' afOpa^: "a carbuncle, tiialignant ptcstule (ace. to some,
small-pox^." Liddell and Scott. Eusebiiis is the only writer to tell
us of this famine and pestilence during Maximin's reign, though
Lactantius I^Dc Mart. pers. 37) does refer in a single sentence to a
famine, without giving us any particulars in regard to it, or informing
us of its severity or extent.
- We do not know when Christianity was first preached in Ar-
menia, but late in the third century Gregory, " the Illuminator," an
Armenian of royal blood who had received a Christian training in
Cappadocia, returned as a missionary to his native land, which was
mainly heathen, and at the beginning of the fourth century succeeded
in converting the king, Tiridates 111., and a large number of the
nobles and people, and Christianity was established as the state
religion (see the articles Armenia and Gregory, the Ilbiinitiator, in
the Did. 0/ Christ. liiog.).
The Armenians had been friends of the Romans for many genera-
tions and allies in their wars with the Persians on many occasions.
The present war is mentioned, so far as 1 know, only by Eusebius.
According to § 4, below, it ended in a defeat for Maximinus. It
cannot have been a war of great consequence. It was very likely
little more than a temporary misunderstanding, resulting jierhaps in
a few skirmishes between troops on the border, and speedily settled
by a treaty of some kind or another. Maxiininus at any rate could
not afford to qu.Trrel long with his Eastern neighbors, in view of the
struggle with I.icinius which he knew must come in time. Whether
the Armenians or the Romans were the aggressors in this affair,
Eusebius does not tell us. It is very probaljle, as Mason suggests,
that Maximintis tried to put down Christianity in Lesser Armenia,
which was a Roman province and therefore under his sway, and
that their brethren in the kingdom of Armenia took up arms against
Rome to avenge their kindred and their faith.
^ Sec the previous chapter, § 8.
♦ An Attic drachm was a silver coin, worth about eighteen or
nineteen cents.
ine and pestilence. Some, therefore, de- 6
sired to dispose of their most precious
things to those who were better supplied, in
return for the smallest morsel of food, and
others, selling their possessions little by little,
fell into the last extremity of want. Some,
chewing wisps of hay and recklessly eating nox-
ious herbs, undermined and ruined their
constitutions. And some of the high-born 7
women in the cities, driven by want to
shameful extremities, went forth into the market-
places to beg, giving evidence of their former
liberal culture by the modesty of their appear-
ance and the decency of their apparel.
Some, wasted away like ghosts and at the 8
very point of death, stumbled and tottered
here and there, and too weak to stand fell down
in the middle of the streets ; lying stretched
out at full length they begged that a small
morsel of food might be given them, and with
their last gasp they cried out Hunger ! having
strength only for this most painful cry.
But others, who seemed to be better sup- 9
plied, astonished at the multitude of the
beggars, after giving away large quantities,
finally became hard and relentless, expecting
that they themselves also would soon suffer the
same calamities as those who begged. So that
in the midst of the market-places and lanes,
dead and naked bodies lay unburied for many
days, presenting the most lamentable spec-
tacle to those that beheld them. Some 10
also became food for dogs, on which ac-
count the survivors began to kill the dogs, lest
they sliould become mad and should go to
devouring men.
pjut still worse was the pestilence which 11
consumed entire houses and families, and
especially those whom the famine was not able
to destroy because of their abundance of food.
Thus men of wealth, rulers and governors and
multitudes in office, as if left by the famine on
purpose for the pestilence, suffered swift and
speedy death. Every place therefore was full of
lamentation ; in every lane and market-place and
street there was nothing else to be seen or
heard than tears, with the customary instru-
ments and the voices of the mourners.^ In 12
this way death, waging war with these two
weapons, pestilence and famine, destroyed whole
families in a short time, so that one could see
two or three dead bodies carried out at
once. Such were the rewards of the boast- 13
ing of Maximinus and of the measures of
the cities against us.
Then did the evidences of the universal zeal
and piety of the Christians become manifest
to all the heathen. For they alone in the 14
midst of such ills showed their sympathy
IX. 9.J
CONSTANTINE'S VICTORY OVER MAXENTIUS.
363
and humanity by their deeds. Every day some
continued caring for and burying the dead, for
there were multitudes who had no one to care
for them ; others collected in one place those
who were afflicted by the famine, throughout the
entire city, and gave bread to them all ; so that
the thing became noised abroad among all men,
and they glorified the God of the Christians ;
and, convinced by the facts themselves, con-
fessed that they alone were truly pious and
15 religious. After these things were thus done,
God, the great and celestial defender of the
Christians, having revealed in the events which
liave been described his anger and indignation
at all men for the great evils which they had
brought upon us, restored to us the bright and
gracious sunlight of his providence in our behalf;
so that in the deepest darkness a light of peace
shone most wonderfully upon us from him, and
made it manifest to all that God himself has
always been the ruler of our affairs. From time
to time indeed he chastens his people and cor-
rects them by his visitations, but again after
sufficient chastisement he shows mercy and favor
to those who hope in him.
CHAPTER IX.
The Victory of the God-Beloved Emperors}
1 Thus when Constantine, whom we have
already mentioned ^"^ as an emperor, born of
an emperor, a pious son of a most pious and
prudent father, and Licinius, second to him,- —
two God-beloved emperors, honored alike for
their intelligence and their piety, — being stirred
up against the two most impious tyrants by God,
the absolute Ruler and Saviour of all, engaged
in formal war against them, with God as their
ally, Maxentius" was defeated at Rome by Con-
stantine in a remarkable manner, and the tyrant
of the Easf* did not long survive him, but met
a most shameful death at the hand of Licin-
1 All the MSS., followed by Valesius and Cruse, give this as the
title of the next chapter, and give as the title of this chapter the one
which I have placed at the head of chapter 10. It is plain enough
from the contents of the two chapters that the titles have in some
way become transposed in the MSS., and so they are restored to
their proper position by the majority of the editors, whom I have
followed.
1* See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13.
- On Licinius, see ibid, note 21. Constantine and Licinius were
both Augusti, and thus nominally of equal rank. Nevertheless,
both in the edict of Galerius, quoted in Bk. VIII. chap. 17, and in
the edict of Milan, given in full in the De Mort. pcrs. chap. 48,
Constantine's name precedes that of Licinius, showing that he was
regarded as in some sense the latter's senior, and thus confirming
Eusebius' statement, the truth of which Closs unnecessarily denies.
It seems a little peculiar that Constantine should thus be recognized
as Licinius' senior, especially in the edict of Galerius; for although
it is true that he had been a Caesar some time before Licinius had
been admitted to the imperial college, yet, on the other hand,
Licinius was made Augustus by Galerius before Constantine was,
and enjoyed his confidence and favor much more fully than the
latter.
^ On Maxentius, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note i.
* i.e. Maximinus. For an account of his defeat by Licinius and
his death, see below, chap. 10.
ius, who had not yet become insane.'' Con- 2
stantine, wlio was the sujierior both in dig-
nity and imjierial rank,'' first took compassion
upon those who were oppressed at Rome, and
having invoked in prayer the God of heaven,
and his Word, and Jesus Christ himself, the
Saviour of all, as his aid, advanced with his whole
army," proposing to restore to the Romans
their ancestral liberty. Ikit Maxentius, put- 3
ting confidence rather in the arts of sorcery
than in the devotion of his subjects, did not dare
to go forth beyond the gates of the city, but for-
tified every place and district and town which
was enslaved by him, in the neighborhood of
Rome and in all Italy, with an immense multi-
tude of troops and with innumerable bands of
soldiers. But the emperor, relying upon the as-
sistance of God, attacked the first, second, and
third army of the tyrant, and conquered them
all ; and having advanced through the greater
part of Italy, was already very near Rome.
Then, that he might not be compelled to 4
wage war with the Romans for the sake of
the tyrant, God himself drew the latter, as if
bound in chains, some distance without the gates,
and confirmed those threats against the impious
which had been anciently inscribed in sacred
books, — disbelieved, indeed, by most as a myth,
but believed by the faithful, — confirmed them,
in a word, by the deed itself to all, both believ-
ers and unbelievers, that saw the wonder
with their eyes. Thus, as in the time of 5
Moses himself and of the ancient God-
beloved race of Hebrews, " he cast Pharaoh's
chariots and host into the sea, and overwhelmed
his chosen charioteers in the Red Sea, and cov-
ered them with the flood," ^ in the same way
Maxentius also with his soldiers and body-guards
"went down into the depths like a stone,"'' when
he fled before the power of God which was with
Constantine, and passed through the river which
lay in his way, over which he had formed a
5 oOttio /u.ai'trTo; Tore. This refers to Licinius' hostility to the
Christians, which made its appearance some years later, and re-
sulted in a persecution (see below, Bk. X. chap. 8). The clause,
if a part of the original, obliges us to suppose that the ninth book
was composed after Licinius had begun to persecute, but there are
strong reasons for thinking that the first nine books were completed
before 314 (see above, p. 45) ; indeed, we cannot explain Eusebius'
eulogistic words in speaking of Licinius here and elsewhere in this
book on any other ground. It seems necessary, therefore, to regard
this clause and the similar clause in § 12, below, as later insertions,
made possibly at the time of the addition of the tenth book (see p. 45) .
'' See above, note 2.
^ Constantine's battle with Maxentius, described in this chapter,
took place on the sixth anniversary of the latter's accession, Oct. 27,
312 (see Lactantius, De 3Iort. pcrs. 44 and 46). For particulars
respecting Constantine himself and his campaign against Maxentius,
see Dr. Richardson's prolegomena to his translation of the Li/c of
Coiistajititic, p. 416. sq. of this volume.
* Ex. XV. 4, 5. The phrase translated "charioteers" is ai'njSa-
Ta? TptcrraTa;, which is employed in the LXX to translate the Hebrew
rtrbtr. The word ^fht , which means literally a " third," and
hence a "third man" (Greek TpicrraT?)?), is used, according to
Gesenius, to denote a chariot warrior, who was so called because
" three always stood upon one chariot, one of whom fought, while the
second protected him with the shield, and the third drove."
" Ex. XV. 5.
3^4
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IX. 9.
bridge with boats, and thus prepared the
6 means of his own destruction. In regard
to him one might say, " he digged a pit and
opened it and fell into the hole which he had
made ; his labor shall turn upon his own head,
and his unrighteousness shall fall upon his
7 own crown." ^" Thus, then, the bridge over
the river being broken, the passageway set-
tled down, and immediately the boats with the
men disappeared in the depths, and that most
impious one himself first of all, then the shield-
bearers who were with him, as the divine oracles
foretold, " sank like lead in the mighty
8
waters
i> . u
so that those who obtained the
victory from God, if not in words, at least
in deeds, like Moses, the great servant of God,
and those who were with him, fittingly sang as
they had sung against the impious tyrant of old,
saying, " Let us sing unto the Lord, for he hath
gloriously glorified himself; horse and rider
hath he thrown into the sea ; a helper and a
protector hath he become for my salvation ;" ^^
and " Who is like unto thee, O Lord ; among the
gods, who is Hke unto thee? glorious in holi-
ness,'^ marvelous in glory, doing wonders." "
9 These and the like praises Constantine, by
his very deeds, sang to God, the universal
Ruler, and Author of his victory, as he entered
Rome in triumph. Immediately all the mem-
bers of the senate and the other most celebrated
men, with the whole Roman people, together
with children and women, received him as their
deliverer, their saviour, and their benefactor,
with shining eyes and with their whole souls,
with shouts of gladness and unbounded joy.
10 But he, as one possessed of inborn piety
toward God, did not exult in the shouts, nor
was he elated by the praises ; but perceiving
that his aid was from God, he immediately com-
manded that a trophy of the Saviour's passion
be put in the hand of his own statue. And when
he had placed it, with the saving sign of the
cross in its right hand, in the most public place
in Rome, he commanded that the following in-
scription should be engraved upon it in the
11 Roman tongue : " By this salutary sign, the
true proof of bravery, I have saved and
freed your city from the yoke of the tyrant ;
and moreover, having set at liberty both the
senate and the people of Rome, I have restored
them to their ancient distinction and splen-
'" Psa. vii. 15, 16. '' Kx. xv. 10.
'- fl'id. verse i. Eusebiiis, in this and the next passage, follows
the I. XX, which differs considerably from the Hebrew.
'•' The LXX, followed by Kiisebius, reads 6t6ofa(r/ot.tVo? t'l- ayo'T
to translate the Hebrew Ci|53 "nSj- It seems probable, both
from the Hebrew original and from the use of the plural 66^^19 in
the next clause, that the LXX translator used the plural aviois", not
to denote " saints," as Closs renders (" durch die Heiligen ") , whic)\
would in strictness require the article, but " holiness." 1 have
therefore ventured to render the word thus in the text, although
quite conscious that the translation does not .accurately reproduce
1.1c Greek phrase as it stands. ** Ex. xv. 11,
dor." '^ And after this both Constantine 12
himself and with him the Emperor Licinius,
who had not yet been seized by that madness
into which he later fell,'*' praising God as the
author of all their blessings, with one will and
mind drew up a full and most complete decree
in behalf of the Christians,'' and sent an account
of the wonderful things done for them by God,
and of the victory over the tyrant, together with
a copy of the decree itself, to Maximinus, who
still ruled over the nations of the East and
pretended friendship toward them. But he, 13
like a tyrant, was greatly pained by what he
learned ; but not wishing to seem to yield to others,
nor, on the other hand, to suppress that which
was commanded, for fear of those who enjoined
it, as if on his own authority, he addressed, under
compulsion, to the governors under him this
first communication in behalf of the Christians,'**
falsely inventing things against himself which had
never been done by him.
Copy of a translation of the epistle of the tyraiit
Maximinus.
"Jovius Maximinus Augustus to Sabinus." I
am confident that it is manifest both to thy firm-
ness and to all men that our masters Diocletian
and Maximianus, our fathers, when they saw
almost all men abandoning the worship of
the gods and attaching themselves to the 14
party of the Christians, rightly decreed that
all who gave up the worship of those same
immortal gods should be recalled by open chas-
tisement and punishment to the worship of
the gods. But when I first came to the 15
'° Upon Constantine's conversion, see Dr. Richardson's prolego-
mena, p. 431, below. On the famous tale of the flaming cross, with
its inscription touto) vi'/ca, related in the Life of Constantine, I. 28,
see his note on that passage, p. 490, below.
'" See above, note 5.
1' This is the famous edict of Milan, which was issued late in the
year 312, and which is given in the Latin original in Lactantius" De
^lort. f>crs. 48, and in a Greek translation in Eusebius' History,
15k. X. chap, s, below. For a discussion of its date and significance,
see the notes upon that chapter.
i* This epistle or rescript (Eusebius calls it here a ypa/xtxa, just be-
low an €7rto-ToAij) of Maximin's was written before the end of the year
312, as can be seen from the fact that in § 17, below, his visit to Nicome-
dia is spoken of as having taken place in the previous year. But that
visit, as we learn from the De Mart. fers. chap. 36, occurred in 31 1
(cf. chap. 2, note i, above). It must therefore have been issued im-
mediately upon the receipt of the edict of Constantine and Licinius.
As Mason remarks, his reasons for writing this epistle can hardly
have been fear of Constantine and Licinius, as Eusebius states, for
he was bent upon war against them, and attacked Licinius at the
earliest possible moment. He cannot have cared, therefore, to take
any special pains to conciliate them. He was probably moved by a
desire to conciliate, just at this crisis, the numerous and influential
body of his subjects whom he had persecuted, in order that he might
not have to contend with disaffection and disloyalty within his own
dominions during his impending conflict with Licinius. The docu-
ment itself is a most peculiar one, full of false statements and con-
tr.adictions. Mason well says: " In this curious letter Maximin
contradicts himself often enough to make his Christian subjects
dizzy. First he justifies bloody persecution, then plumes himself
upon h.aving stopped it, next apologizes for having set it again on foot,
then denies that it was going on, and lastly orders it to cease. We
cannot wonder at what Eusebius relates, that the people whose
wrongs the letter applauded and forbade, neither built church nor
held meeting in public on the strength of it; they did not know
where to have it."
I 1" On Sabinus, sec above, chap, i, note 3.
IX. 9.]
MAXIMIN'S GRANT OF PARTIAL TOLERATION.
365
East under favorable auspices ami learned tliat
in some places a great many men who were
able to render public service had been banished
by the judges for the above-mentioned cause, I
gave command to each of the judges that hence-
forth none of them should treat the i)rovincials
with severity, but that they should rather recall
them to the worship of the gods by flattery
16 and exhortations.-" 'J'hen when, in accord-
ance with my command, these orders were
obeyed by the judges, it came to pass that none
of those who lived in the districts of the East
were banished or insulleJ, but that they were
rather brought back to the worship of the gods
by the fact that no severity was employed
17 toward them. But afterwards, when I went
up last year -^ under good auspices to Nico-
media and sojourned there, citizens of the same
city came to me with the images of the gods,
earnestly entreating that such a people should
by no means be permitted to dwell in their
18 country." But when I learned that many
men of the same religion dwelt in those re-
gions, I replied that I gladly thanked them for
their request, but that I perceived that it was
not proffered by all, and that if, therefore, there
were any that persevered in the same supersti-
tion, each one had the privilege of doing as he
pleased, even if he wished to recognize the
19 worship of the gods.-^ Nevertheless, I con-
sidered it necessary to give a friendly an-
swer to the inhabitants of Nicomedia and to the
other cities which had so earnestly presented to
me the same petition, namely, that no Christians
should dwell in their cities, — both because this
same course had been pursued by all the ancient
emperors, and also because it was pleasing to
the gods, through whom all men and the gov-
ernment of the state itself endure, — and to
confirm the request which they presented in
20 behalf of the worship of their deity. There-
fore, although before this time, special let-
ters have been sent to thy devotedness, and
commands have likewise been given that no
harsh measures should be taken against those
provincials who desire to follow such a course,
but that they should be treated mildly and mod-
erately, — nevertheless, in order that they may
2" Nothing could be farther from the truth than this and the
following statement.
-' That is, after the death of Galerius in the year 311. " Max-
iminus, on receiving this news (i.e. of the death of Galerius), hasted
with relays of horses from the East that he might seize the provinces,
and, while Licinius delayed, might arrogate to himself the Chalce-
donian straits. On his entry into Bithynia, with the view of ac-
quiring immediate popularity, he abolished the tax to the great joy
of all. Dissension arose between the two emperors, and almost war.
They stood on the opposite shores with their armies. But peace
and friendship were established under certain conditions; a treaty
was concluded on the narrow sea, and they joined hands" (Lactantius,
De mort.pers. 36). See above, chap. 2, note 1.
22 On these embassies, see ibid, note 3.
^' There is no sign of such consideration in Maximin's rescript,
quoted in chap. 7, above. The sentences which follow are quite
not suffer insults or extortions'^ from the bene-
ficiaries,-'' or from any others, I have thought
meet to remind thy firmness in this epistle -*' also
that thou shouldst lead our provincials rather
by flatteries and exhortations to recognize
the care of the gods. Hence, if any one 21
of his own choice should decide to adopt
the worship of the gods, it is fitting that he
should be welcomed, but if any shoukl wish to
follow their own religion, do thou leave it in
their power. Wherefore it behooves thy 22
devotedness to observe that which is com-
mitted to thee, and to see that power is given
to no one to oppress our provincials with in-
sults and extortions,-^ since, as already written,
it is fitting to recall our provincials to the wor-
ship of the gods rather by exhortations and
flatteries. But, in order that this command of
ours may come to the knowledge of all our pro-
vincials, it is incumbent upon thee to proclaim
that which has been enjoined, in an edict issued
by thyself."
Since he was forced to do this by neces- 23
sity and did not give the command by his
own will, he was not regarded by any one as
sincere or trustworthy, because he had already
shown his unstable and deceitful disposition
after his former similar concession. None 24
of our people, therefore, ventured to hold
meetings or even to appear in public, because
his communication did not cover this, but only
commanded to guard against doing us any in-
jury, and did not give orders that we should hold
meetings or build churches or perform any
of our customary acts. And yet Constan- 25
tine and Licinius, the advocates of peace
and piety, had written him to permit this, and
had granted it to all their subjects by edicts and
ordinances.-* But this most impious man did
not choose to yield in this matter until, being
driven by the divine judgment, he was at last
compelled to do it against his will.
contradictory. Certainly no one could gain from them any idea
as to what the emperor had done in the matter.
-■' <reio-|aoii?, literally, " shakings," or " shocks." The word is
doubtless used to translate the Latin coiicussio, which in legal lan-
guage meant tlie extortion of money by threats or other similar
means. The words concussio, concitssor, concittit, are used very
frequently by TertuUian in this sense; e.g. in his De /uga in /(•?-
secutionc, chap. 12, ad Scap. chaps. 4 and 5, Apol. chap. 7. See
especially Oehler's note on the word in his edition of TertuUian's
works, I. p. 484.
25 ^ei'etj)iKLa\Coiv, a simple reproduction of the Latin benefici-
arii. These bcnc/iciarii viere "free or privileged soldiers, who
through the favor of their commander were exempt from menial
offices" (Andrews' Lexicon). We are nowhere told, so far as I am
aware, that these bene/iciarii v/exc especially active in thus prac-
ticing extortions upon the Christians; but we can gather from Ter-
tuUian's words in the various passages referred to that the Christians
had to suffer particularly from the soldiers in this respect, and doubt-
less from the bcue/tciarii most of all; for they possessed more
leisure than the common soldiers, and at the same time greater
opportunity, because of their more intimate relations with the au-
thorities, of bringing the Christians into difficulty by entering accu-
sations against them.
"''• TOC9 vpafx/xao-t. On the use of the plural in speaking of a
single epistle, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 12.
-' See note 24.
28 See above, note 17, and below, Bk. X. chap. 5,
366
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IX. 10.
CHAPTER X.
The Ove7-throw of the Tyrants and the JVords
which they uttered before their Death}
1 The circumstances which drove him to
this course were the following. Being no
longer able to sustain the magnitude of the
government which had been undeservedly com-
mitted to him, in consequence of his want of
prudence and imperial understanding, he man-
aged affairs in a base manner, and with his mind
unreasonably exalted in all things with boastful
pride, even toward his colleagues in the empire
who were in every respect his superiors, in
birth, in training, in education, in worth and in-
telligence, and, greatest of all, in temperance
and piety toward the true God, he began to
venture to act audaciously and to arrogate
2 to himself the first rank.^ Becoming mad
in his folly, he broke the treaties which he
had made with Licinius ^ and undertook an
implacable war. Then in a brief time he threw
all things into confusion, and stirred up every
city, and having collected his entire force, com-
prising an immense number of soldiers, he went
forth to battle with him, elated by his hopes in
demons, whom he supposed to be gods, and
3 by the number of his soldiers. And when
he joined battle'* he was deprived of the
oversight of God, and the victory was given to
Licinius,^ who was then ruling, by the one
4 and only God of all. First, the army in
which he trusted was destroyed, and as all
his guards abandoned him and left him alone,
and fled to the victor, he secretly divested him-
self as quickly as possible of the imperial gar-
ments, which did not fitly belong to him, and in
a cowardly and ignoble and unmanly way min-
gled with the crowd, and then fled, concealing
himself in fields and villages.^ But though he
was so careful for his safety, he scarcely escaped
the hands of his enemies, revealing by his deeds
1 On the transposition of the titles of chaps, g and lo, see the
previous chapter, note i.
2 That Maxiinin should arrogate to himself, as Eusebius says,
the highest rank is not very surprising, when we realize that that
jKJsition, in so far as any difference in rank between the different
riders was acknowledged, belonged to him by right, inasmuch as
he was Constantine's senior (having been first Ca;sar when the lat-
ter was only second), while Constantine (see above, chap. 9, note 2)
was regarded as the senior of Licinius.
3 The treaty made in 311, just after the death of Galerius (see De
viort. fiers. 36).
■• This battle between Licinius and Maximin was fought on April
30, 313, .at Adrianople, in Thrace. For a more detailed but somewhat
imaginative account of the battle, see De viort. pers. chap. 45 sq.
Lactanlius is considerate enough to accord Licinius the honor of a
divine vision, that he niay not be behind his imperial colleague Con-
stantine; and he is pious enough to ascribe the victory wholly to the
divine aid vouchsafed in response to the prayers of Licinius and his
soldiers.
'■' The word Licinius is omitted by Laemmer and Hcinichen, but
without sufficient warrant, for it is found in nearly all tlie MSS.
" Lactantius {ihid. chaj). 47) informs us that Maximin's flight
was so rapid that he reached Nicomedia, which was 160 miles from
Adrianople, on the evening of the day following the battle. As
Gibbon remarks, " The inrrediblc speed whicli Maximin exerted in
his flight is much more celebrated than his prowess in battle."
that the divine oracles are faithful and true,
in which it is said, " A king is not saved by 5
a great force, and a giant shall not be saved
by the greatness of his strength ; a horse is a
vain thing for safety, nor shall he be delivered
by the greatness of his power. Behold, the eyes
of the Lord are upon them that fear him, upon
them that hope in his mercy, to deliver
their souls from death." " Thus the ty- 6
rant, covered with shame, went to his own
country. And first, in frantic rage, he slew
many priests and prophets of the gods whom
he had formerly admired, and whose oracles had
incited him to undertake the war, as sorcerers
and impostors, and besides all as betrayers of
his safety. Then having given glory to the God
of the Christians and enacted a most full and
complete ordinance in behalf of their liberty,''*
he was immediately seized with a mortal disease,
and no respite being granted him, departed this
life.''' The law enacted by him was as follows :
Copy of the edict of the tyrant in behalf of 7
the Christians, transhitcd from the Ro-
man tongue.
" The Emperor Caesar Caius Valerius Maximi-
nus, Germanicus, Sarmaticus, Pius, Felix, Invic-
tus, Augustus. We believe it manifest that no
one is ignorant, but that every man who looks
back over the past knows and is conscious that
in every way we care continually for the good of
our provincials, and wish to furnish them with
those things which are of especial advantage to
all, and for the common benefit and profit, and
whatever contributes to the public welfare
and is agreeable to the views of each. When, 8
therefore, before this, it became clear to our
mind that under pretext of the command of our
parents, the most divine Diocletian and Maxi-
mianus, which enjoined that the meetings of the
' Ps. xxxiii. 16-19.
8 The final toleration edict of Maximin must have been issued
very soon after his defeat, and its occasion is plain enough. If he
were to oppose Licinius successfully, he must secure the loyalty of
all his suljjects, and this could be done only by granting the Chris-
tians full toleration. He could see plainly enough that Licinius'
religious policy was a success in securing the allegiance of his sub-
jects, and he found himself compelled in self-defense to pursue a
similar course, distasteful as it was to him. There is no sign that
he had any other motive in taking this step. Religious considera-
tions seem to have had nothing to do with it; he was doubtless as
much of a pagan as ever. The edict itself is composed in an admi-
rable vein. As Mason remarks, " Maximin made the concession with
so much dignity and grace, that it is impossible to help wisliing that
his language were truer." As in the previous decree, he indulges
his passion for lying without restraint; but, unlike that one, the
present edict is straiglnforward and consistent throughout, and grants
the Christians full liberty in the most uneipiivocal terms.
'■> Maximin's death took place at Tarsus (according to De iiiort.
pers. chap. 49), and apparently within a few weeks after his defeat
at Adrianople and the publication of his edict of toleration. The
reports of his dea'h are somewhat conflicting. Zosimiis and the
epitomist of Victor say merely that he died a natural death; Lac-
tantius tells us that he took poison; while Eusebius in § 14 sq.
gives us a horrible account of his last sickness which, according to
him, was marked, to say the least, with some rather remarkable
symptoms. NLison facetiously remarks that Eusebius seems to be
thinking of a spontaneous combustion. It was finite the fashion in
the early Church to tell dreadful tales in connection with the deaths
IX. II.]
DEATH OF MAXIMIN.
367
Christians should be aboUshed, many extortions"
and spoHations had been practiced by offi-
cials ; and that those evils were continually in-
creasing, to the detriment of our provincials,
toward whom we are especially anxious to exer-
cise proper care, and that their possessions
were in consequence perishing, letters were sent
last year '^ to the governors of each province, in
which we decreed that, if any one wished to fol-
low such a practice or to observe this same re-
ligion, he should be permitted without hindrance
to pursue his purpose and should be impeded
and I'lrevented by no one, and that all should
have liberty to do without any fear or suspi-
9 cion that which each preferred. But even
now we cannot help perceiving that some
of the judges have mistaken our commands, and
have given our people reason to doubt the mean-
ing of our ordinances, and have caused them to
proceed too reluctantly to the observance of
those religious rites which are pleasing to
10 them. In order, therefore, that in the fu-
ture every suspicion of fearful doubt may be
taken away, we have commanded that this decree
be published, so that it may be clear to all that
whoever wishes to embrace this sect and religion
is permitted to do so by virtue of this grant of
ours ; and that each one, as he wishes or as is
pleasing to him, is permitted to practice this re-
ligion which he has chosen to observe according
to his custom. It is also granted them to
11 build Lord's houses. But that this grant of
ours may be the greater, we have thought
good to decree also that if any houses and lands
before this time rightfully belonged to the Chris-
tians, and by the command of our parents fell
into the treasury, or were confiscated by any
city, — whether they have been sold or presented
to any one as a gift, — that all these should be
restored to their original possessors, the Chris-
tians, in order that in this also every one may
have knowledge of our piety and care."
12 These are the words of the tyrant which
were published not quite a year after the
decrees against the Christians engraved by him
on pillars.^- And by him to whom a little
before we seemed impious wretches and atheists
and destroyers of all life, so that we were not
permitted to dwell in any city nor even in coun-
try or desert, — by him decrees and ordinances
were issued in behalf of the Christians, and they
of the perseculors, but in the present case exaggeration is hardly
necessary, for it would seem from I.actantius' account, that he died
not of poison, as he states, but of delirium tremens. As Mason
remarks, " It is probable that Maximin died of nothing worse than
a natuial death. l!ut the death which was natural to him was the
most d/eadful perhaps that men can die. Maximin was known as an
habitual drunkard; and in his dying delirium he is said to have cried
out that he saw God, with assessors, all in white robes, judging
him." 1" See chap. 9, note 24.
" i.e. the epistle addressed to Sabinus, and quoted in the pre-
vious chapter, which was written toward the end of 312 (see that
chapter, note 18).
1- See above, chap, 7,
who recently had been destroyed by fire and
sword, by wild beasts and birds of prey, in the
presence of the tyrant himself, and had suffered
every species of torture and punishment, and
most miserable deaths as atheists and impious
wretches, were now acknowledged by him as
possessors of religion and were permitted to
build churches ; and the tyrant himself bore
witness and confessed that they had some
rights. And having made such confessions, 13
as if he had received some benefit on ac-
count of them, he suffered perhaps less than he
ought to have suffered, and being smitten by a
sudden scourge of God, he perished in the
second campaign of the war. But his end 14
was not like that of military chieftains who,
while fighting bravely in battle for virtue and
friends, often boldly encounter a glorious death ;
for like an impious enemy of God, while his
army was still drawn up in the field, remaining
at home and concealing himself, he suffered the
punishment which he deserved. For he was
smitten with a sudden scourge of God in his
whole body, and harassed by terrible pains and
torments, he fell prostrate on the ground, wasted
by hunger, while all his flesh was dissolved by
an invisible and God-sent fire, so that the whole
appearance of his frame was changed, and there
was left only a kind of image wasted away by
length of time to a skeleton of dry bones ; so
that those who were present could think of his
body as nothing else than the tomb of his soul,
which was buried in a body already dead
and completely melted away. And as the 15
heat still more violently consumed him in
the depths of his marrow, his eyes burst forth,
and falling from their sockets left him blind.
Thereupon still breathing and making free con-
fession to the Lord, he invoked death, and at
last, after acknowledging that he justly suffered
these things on account of his violence against
Christ, he gave up the ghost.
CHAPTER XL
The Filial Destruction of the Enemies of
Re/igion.
Thus when Maximinus, who alone had 1
remained of the enemies of religion ^ and
had appeared the worst of them all, was put out
of the way, the renovation of the churches from
their foundations was begun by the grace of
God the Ruler of all, and the word of Christ,
shining unto the glory of the God of the uni-
verse, obtained greater freedom than before,
' Maximian died in 310 (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 23),
Galerius in 311 (see ihid. chap. 16, note 5), Maxentius in 312 (see
above, chap, g, note 7), and Diocletian early in 313 (see Bk. VIII.
App. note 3).
368
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[IX. II.
while the impious enemies of rehgion were cov-
ered with extremest shame and dishonor.
2 For Maximinus himself, being first pro-
nounced by the emperors a common en-
emy, was declared by public proclamations to be
a most impious, execrable, and God-hating ty-
rant. And of the portraits which had been set up
in every city in honor of him or of his children,
some were thrown down from their places to the
ground, and torn in pieces ; while the faces of oth-
ers were obliterated by daubing them with black
paint. And the statues which had been erected
to his honor were likewise overthrown and
broken, and lay exposed to the laughter and
sport of those who wished to insult and
3 abuse them. Then also all the honors of
the other enemies of religion were taken
away, and all those who sided with Maximinus
were slain, especially those who had been hon-
ored by him with high offices in reward for their
flattery, and had behaved insolently toward
4 our doctrine. Such an one was Peucetius,-
the dearest of his companions, who had
been honored and rewarded by him above all,
who had been consul a second and third time,
and had been appointed by him chief minister ; ^
and Culcianus,'* who had likewise advanced
through every grade of office, and was also cel-
ebrated for his numberless executions of Chris-
tians in Egypt ; ^ and besides these not a iew
others, by whose agency especially the tyranny
of Maximinus had been confirmed and ex-
5 tended. And Theotecnus ^ also was sum-
^ Of this Peucetius (Rufinus Peitcedius) we know only what is
told us here. Valesius says: "The name is to be rendered Picen-
tiits, a name which was borne by a certain caliimntaior in the time
of Constantine, as is stated by Zosimus at the end of his second
book. The Latins, indeed, call them Picentes whom the Greeks
call Ui/KeTiou?."
3 TO)!' icafloAou Adywi' e7rap\09, apparently equivalent to the
phrase eirl Tiav Ka06\ov Ad■/w^, used in l>k. VII. chap. lo, § 5. On
Its significance, see the note on that passage, and cf. Valesius' note
ad locum.
* This same Culcianus appears in the Ads of St. Phileas of
Thmuis (Ruinart, p. 434 sq. ; see the extract printed in Mason, p.
290 sq.) as the magistrate or governor under whom Phileas suffered
in Thebais. He is doubtless to be identified, as Valesius remarks,
with Culeianus (KouArjiavd?) mentioned by Epiphanius {Hier.
1-XVIII. i) as governor of Thebais at the time of tlie rise of the
Meletian schism, while Ilieroclcs was governor of Alexandria.
•'■■ Culcianus seems to have been governor of Thebais (where
Phileas suffered, according to Bk. VIII. chap. 9), not of Egypt.
Possibly Eusebius employs the word Egypt in its general sense, as
including Thebais.
" On Theotecnus, see above, chap. 2, note 4.
moned by justice which by no means overlooked
his deeds against the Christians. For when the
statue had been set up by him at Antioch,' he
appeared to be in the happiest state, and was
already made a governor by Maximinus.
But Licinius, coming down to the city of 6
Antioch, made a search for impostors, and
tortured the prophets and priests of the newly
erected statue, asking them for what reason they
practiced their deception. They, under the
stress of torture, were unable longer to conceal
the matter, and declared that the whole decep-
tive mystery had been devised by the art of
Theotecnus. Therefore, after meting out to all
of them just judgment, he first put Theotecnus
himself to death, and then his confederates in
the imposture, with the severest possible
tortures. To all these were added also the 7
children^ of Maximinus, whom he had
already made sharers in the imperial dignity, by
placing their names on tablets and statues. And
the relatives of the tyrant, who before had been
boastful and had in their pride oppressed all
men, suffered the same punishments with those
who have been already mentioned, as well as
the extremest disgrace. For they had not re-
ceived instruction, neither did they know and
understand the exhortation given in the
Holy Word : " Put not your trust in prin- 8
ces, nor in the sons of men, in whom there
is no salvation ; his spirit shall go forth and
return to his earth ; in that day all their thoughts
perish." ^
The impious ones having been thus 9
removed, the government was preserved
firm and undisputed for Constantine and Licin-
ius, to whom it fittingly belonged. They, hav-
ing first of all cleansed the world of hostility
to the Divine Being, conscious of the benefits
which he had conferred upon them, showed
their love of virtue and of God, and their piety
and gratitude to the Deity, by their ordinance
in behalf of the Christians.^"
■^ See chap. 3.
" L.ictantius i^De niort. pers. chap. 50) tells us that Maximin
left a wife and two children, a boy eight years old, named Maximus,
and a daughter seven years old who was betrothed to Candidianus.
" Ps. cxlvi. 3, 4.
^" See below, Bk. X. chap. 5.
6
rd.
nai
ms
ashi
the d
BOOK X.
CHAPTER I.
The Peace granted us by God.
1 Thanks for all things be given unto God
the Omnipotent Ruler and King of the uni-
verse, and the greatest thanks to Jesus Christ
the Saviour and Redeemer of our souls, through
whom we pray that peace may be always pre-
served for us firm and undisturbed by exter-
nal troubles and by troubles of the mind,
2 Since in accordance with thy wishes, my
most holy Paulinus,^ we have added the
tenth book of the Church History to those which
have preceded," we will inscribe it to thee,
proclaiming thee as the seal of the whole
3 work ; and we will fitly add in a perfect
number the perfect panegyric upon the
restoration of the churches,^ obeying the Divine
Spirit which exhorts us in the following words :
1 Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, became afterward bishop of Antioch,
as we are told by Eiisebius, Contra Marcellnm, I. 4, and by Philo-
storgius, H. E. III. 15. According to Jerome's Chron., year of
Abr. 2345, he was the successor of Philogonius and the predecessor
of Eustathius in the episcopate of Antioch. He was still alive when
Eusebius completed his History, that is, at least as late as 323 (see
above, p. 45), but he was already dead when the Council of Nicaea
met; for Eustathius was at that time bishop of Antioch (see e.g. So-
zomen, H. E. I. 17, Theodoret, H. E. I. 7, and the Acts of the Coun-
cil of Nica;a, ed. Labbei et Cossartii, I. p. 51), and Zeno, bishop of
Tyre (see the Acts of the Nicene Council, ibid.). Philostorgius
f^ibid.) informs us that he became bishop of Antioch but six months
before his death, and there is no reason to doubt the statement.
Eusebius speaks of him in the highest terms, both here and in his
Contra Marcellnm, and it was at the dedication of his church in
Tyre that he delivered the panegyric oration quoted in chap. 4,
below. He is claimed as a sympathizer by Arius in his epistle to
Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. E. I. 5), and that he ac-
cepted Arius' tenets is implied by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who,
however, feels obliged to admonish him for not showing greater zeal
in the support of the cause (see this epistle quoted by Theodoret,
H. E. I. 6). This is the extent of our information in regard to him.
- On the date of the composition of the tenth book of the History,
and its relation to the earlier books, see above, p. 45.
3 eiKoTuj? 6' kv api8/j.a) TtAeioi t'uv TeAeioi' kvja.\)Sa. Kal iraviJYiipi-
Kov T^9 TMV eKK\ri<TLujv ai/aveuJcTeios \6yov KaTard^oixev. The mean-
ing of this sentence is very obscure. Valesius translates: Nee ab-
siirde ut opinor, absolutam omnibus nnmeris orationem panegy-
ricain de ecclesiarnin instauratione hie in per/ecio numero
colloeabimus. Stroth, followed by Closs, renders: " Mit Recht
werden wir liier auch eine vollstandige feierliche Rede, von der
Wiedererneuerung der Kirchen, als einen ordentlichen Theil mit-
einrucken." Cruse reads: "Justly, indeed, shall we here subjoin
in a perfect number a complete discourse and panegyric on the
renovation of the churches." The " perfect number " seems to refer
to the number of the book (the number ten being commonly so
called in ancient times), to which he has referred in the previous
clause. Could we regard the "perfect panegyric "as referring to
the book as a whole, as Crus^ does, the sentence would be some-
what clearer; but the phrase seems to be a plain reference to the
oration given in chap. 4, especially since Eusebius does not say t^9
e«cArj(Tia?, but tmv iKK\ri(TiU)y, as in the title of that oration. I
have preserved the play of words, Tckeitxi — tcAcio^, in order to
bring out Eusebius' thought more clearly, but it must be remarked
that the word reA.eioi' does not imply praise of the quality of his
oration on the author's part. It is used rather in the sense of com-
plete or final, because it celebrates a completed work, as the tenth
book completes his History, and thus crowns the whole.
" Sing unto the Lord a new song, for he hath
done marvelous things. His right hand and his
holy arm hath saved him. The Lord hath made
known his salvation, his righteousness hath he
revealed in the presence of the nations."''
And in accordance with the utterance which 4
commands us to sing the new song, let us
proceed to show that, after those terrible and
gloomy spectacles which we have described,"' we
are now permitted to see and celebrate such
things as many truly righteous men and martyrs
of God before us desired to see upon earth and
did not see, and to hear and did not hear."
But they, hastening on, obtained far better 5
things,^ being carried to heaven and the
paradise of divine pleasure. But, acknowledg-
ing that even these things are greater than we
deserve, we have been astonished at the grace
manifested by the author of the great gifts, and
rightly do we admire him, worshiping him with
the whole power of our souls, and testifying to
the truth of those recorded utterances, in
which it is said, " Come and see the works 6
of the Lord, the wonders which he hath
done upon the earth ; he removeth wars to the
ends of the world, he shall break the bow and
snap the spear in sunder, and shall burn the
shields with fire."* Rejoicing in these things
which have been clearly fulfilled in our day, let
us proceed with our account.
The whole race of God's enemies was 7
destroyed in the manner indicated,^ and
was thus suddenly swept from the sight of men.
So that again a divine utterance had its fulfill-
ment : " I have seen the impious highly exalted
and raising himself like the cedars of Lebanon ;
and I have passed by, and behold, he was not ;
and I have sought his place, and it could
not be found." ^" And finally a bright and 8
splendid day, overshadowed by no cloud,
illuminated with beams of heavenly light the
churches of Christ throughout the entire world.
And not even those without our communion'^
were prevented from sharing in the same bless-
ings, or at least from coming under their influ-
* Psa. xcviii. 1,2.
■" Literally, "spectacles and narratives" (oi/(ets re (cai Sirj-
7^cr€i?).
fi Cf. Matt. xiii. 17. " Cf. Phil. i. 23.
8 Psa. xlvi. 8, 9.
" See chaps. 10 and 11 of the preceding book.
'" Psa. xxxvii. 35, 36.
" TOis i^u)6iv ToO Ka0' i^fxa; Bidtrov,
VOL. I.
Bb
370
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[X. I.
ence and enjoying a part of the benefits bestowed
upon us by God.^'
CHAPTER II.
The Restoration of the Churches.
1 All men, then, were freed from the op-
pression of the tyrants, and being released
from the former ills, one in one way and another
in another acknowledged the defender of the
pious to be the only true God. And we especially
who placed our hopes in the Christ of God had
unspeakable gladness, and a certain inspired joy
bloomed for all of us, when we saw every place
which shortly before had been desolated by the
impieties of the tyrants reviving as if from a long
and death-fraught pestilence, and temples again
rising from their foundations to an immense
height, and receiving a splendor far greater than
that of the old ones which had been destroyed.
2 But the supreme rulers also confirmed to us
still more extensively the munificence of God
by repeated ordinances in behalf of the Christians ;
and personal letters of the emperor were sent to
the bishops, with honors and gifts of money. It
may not be unfitting to insert these documents,
translated from the Roman into the Greek tongue,
at the proper place in this book,^ as in a sacred
tablet, that they may remain as a memorial to
all who shall come after us.
CHAPTER III.
The Dedications in Every Place.
1 After this was seen the sight which had
been desired and prayed for by us all ;
feasts of dedication in the cities and consecra-
tions of the newly built houses of prayer took
place, bishops assembled, foreigners came to-
gether from abroad, mutual love was exhibited
between people and people, the members of
Christ's body were united in complete har-
2 mony. Then was fulfilled the prophetic
utterance which mystically foretold what was
to take place : " Bone to bone and joint to
joint," ^ and whatever was truly announced in
enigmatic expressions in the inspired pas-
3 sage. And there was one energy of the
12 By the edict of Constantine and Licinius full religious liberty
was granted, not only to the Christians, but to all men of whatever
creed or cult.
' See below, chaps. 5-7. i Ezek. xxxvii. 7.
' These sentences are excellent examples of Eusebius' rhetorical
style, which marks the greater part of this tenth book. My endeavor
has been to adhere as closely as possible to the original; and yet
there are cases in which it is quite out of the question to give a
literal translation without violating all grammatical laws, and in
which the sense can be reproduced only by paraphrasing. The
present sentence runs vm p.'i)v ical Toir 7T-po>)youfieV(oi' ei'TeAtt?
SpjjiTKeioi, iepoupyiai T« TiiK tepujuccui', (coi Oion-ptn'eis iKKKr[iji.a.%
0€<Tnoi.
Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and
one soul in all, and the same eagerness of
faith, and one hymn from all in praise of the
Deity. Yea, and perfect services were conducted
by the prelates, the sacred rites being solem-
nized, and the majestic institutions of the Church
observed,^ here with the singing of psalms and
with the reading of the words committed to us
by God, and there with the performance of
divine and mystic services ; and the mysterious
symbols of the Saviour's passion were dis-
pensed. At the same time people of every 4
age, both male and female, with all the
power of the mind gave honor unto God, the
author of their benefits, in prayers and thanks-
giving, with a joyful mind and soul. And every
one of the bishops present, each to the best of
his ability, delivered panegyric orations, adding
luster to the assembly.
CHAPTER IV.
Panegyric on the Splendor of Affairs.
A CERTAIN one of those of moderate tab 1
ent,^ who had composed a discourse, stepped
forward in the presence of many pastors who
were assembled as if for a church gathering,
and while they attended quietly and decently,
he addressed himself as follows to one who was
in all things a most excellent bishop and beloved
of God,- through whose zeal the temple in Tyre,
which was the most splendid in Phoenicia, had
been erected.
Panegyric upon the building of the churches, 2
addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre.
" Friends and priests of God who are clothed
in the sacred gown and adorned with the heav-
enly crown of glory, the inspired unction and
the sacerdotal garment of the Holy Spirit ; and
thou,^ oh pride of God's new holy temple, en-
dowed by him with the wisdom of age, and yet
exhibiting costly works and deeds of youthful
and flourishing \'irtue, to whom God himself,
who embraces the entire world, has granted the
distinguished honor of building and renewing this
earthly house to Christ, his only begotten and
first-born Word, and to his holy and divine
bride ; * — one might call thee a new Beseleel,^ 3
the architect of a divine tabernacle, or Solo-
mon, king of a new and much better Jerusalem,
' This person was clearly Eusebius himself (see above, p. ii).
Upon the date of this dedicatory service, at which Eusebius deliv-
ered the oration given in full in this chapter, see ibid.
''■ Paulinus, bishop of Tyre. See above, chap, i, note i.*
' i.e. Paulinus. * Cf. Rev. xxi. 2.
I" ^i(7eAf))A, which is the form found in the LXX. The Hebrew
is T'ST'jiS. which the R. V. renders " Bezalel." See Ex. xxxv.
30 sq. ' ■
X. 4.]
EUSEBIUS' DISCOURSE AT TYRE.
371
or also a new Zerubabel, who added a much
greater glory than the former to the temple
4 of God ; " — and you also, oh nurslings of
the sacred flock of Christ, habitation of
good words, school of wisdom, and august
5 and pious auditory of religion : "' It was long
ago i)ermitted us to raise hymns and songs
to God, when we learned from hearing the Divine
Scriptures read the marvelous signs of God and
the benefits conferred upon men by the Lord's
wondrous deeds, being taught to say * Oh God !
we have heard with our ears, our fathers have
told us the work which thou didst in their
6 days, in days of old.'^ But now as we no
longer perceive the lofty arm ^ and the celes-
tial right hand of our all-gracious God and uni-
versal King by hearsay merely or report, but
observe so to speak in very deed and with
our own eyes that the declarations recorded
long ago are faithful and true, it is permitted
us to raise a second hymn of triumph and to
sing with loud voice, and say, ' As we have
heard, so have we seen ; in the city of the
Lord of hosts, in the city of our God.' '"
7 And in what city but in this newly built
and God-constructed one, wliich is a ' church
of the living God, a pillar and foundation of
the truth,'" concerning which also another
divine oracle thus proclaims, ' Glorious things
have been spoken of thee, oh city of God.' ^-
Since the all-gracious God 'has brought us to-
gether to it, through the grace of his Only-
Begotten, let every one of those who have been
summoned sing with loud voice and say, ' I was
glad when they said unto me, we shall go unto
the house of the Lord,' '^ and ' Lord, I have
loved the beauty of thy house and the place
8 where thy glory dwelleth.' " And let us
not only one by one, but all together, with
one spirit and one soul, honor him and cry
aloud, saying, ' Great is the Lord and greatly to
be praised in the city of our God, in his holy
mountain.' ^^ For he is truly great, and great
is his house, lofty and spacious and ' comely in
beauty above the sons of men.' ^" ' Great is
the Lord who alone doeth wonderful things ' ; ^"
* great is he who doeth great things and things
past finding out, glorious and marvelous things
which cannot be numbered ' ; ^^ great is he ' who
changeth times and seasons, who exalteth and
debaseth kings ' ; ^^ ' who raiseth up the poor
from the earth and lifteth up the needy from
" See Hag. ii. 9.
^ Eusebius addresses first the assembled clergymen in general,
then Paulinus in particular, and finally the people, calling the latter
" nurslings," " habitation," " school," " auditory." The signifi-
cance of the words as used by him is plain enough, but their colloca-
tion is rather remarkable.
' Psa. xliv. I. '* Psa. xxvi. 8.
9 Cf. Ex. vi. 6 et al. ^^ Psa. xlviii. i.
"> Psa. xlviii. 8. 1" Psa. xlv. 2.
^* I Tim. iii. 15. '' Psa. cxxxvi. 4.
'^ Psa. Ixxxvii. 3. '^ Job ix. 10.
'^ Psa. cxxii. i. ^'^ Dan. ii. 21.
the dunghill.'-* 'He hath put down princes
from their thrones and hath exalted them of
low degree from the earth. The hungry he hath
filled with good things and the arms of
the ])r(ju(l he hath broken.' -' Not only to 9
the faithful, but also to unbelievers, has he
confirmed the record of ancient events ; he that
worketh miracles, he that doeth great things, the
Master of all, the Creator of the whole world,
the omnipotent, the all-merciful, the one and
only God. To him let us sing the new song,-^
sup])lying in thought,-^ ' To him who alone doeth
great wonders : for his mercy endureth for-
ever ' ; 2* ' To him whicli smote great kings, and
slew famous kings : for his mercy endureth
forever ' ; ^ * For the Lord remembered us in
our low estate and delivered us from our
adversaries.' -" And let us never cease to 10
cry aloud in these words to the Father of
the universe. And let us always honor him with
our mouth who is the second cause of our bene-
fits, the instructor in divine knowledge, the
teacher of the true religion, the destroyer of
the impious, the slayer of tyrants, the reformer
of life, Jesus, the Saviour of us who were
in despair. For he alone, as the only all- 11
gracious Son of an all-gracious Father, in
accordance with the purpose of his Father's
benevolence, has willingly put on the nature of
us who lay prostrate in corruption, and like
some excellent physician, who for the sake of
saving them that are ill, examines their suffer-
ings, handles their foul sores, and reaps pain for
himself from the miseries of another,^ so us
who were not only diseased and afflicted with
terrible ulcers and wounds already mortified,
but were even lying among the dead, he hath
saved for himself from the very jaws of death.
For none other of those in heaven had such
2" I Sam. Ii. 8 (Psa. cxiii. 7).
21 Luke i. 52, 53. -2 Cf. Psa. xcvi. i.
-3 T! poav-n aKov ovTe<;. Eusebius seems to use this rather peculiar
expression because the words of song which he suggests are not the
words of the " new song " given by the Psalmist, but are taken from
other parts of the book. ** Psa. cxxxvi. 4.
-^ Ibid. 17. "^ Ibid. 23, 24.
2' It is remarked by Valesius that these words are taken from
some tragic poet. That they are quoted from an ancient writer is
clear enough from the Ionic forms which occur (opjj, aWorpiyai,
^vnif>opff<Ti.), and if a few slight changes be made (/ca/u.i'd>'Tu)>' to
KafjiovTuii', tVcKej' to etVeK€i', )ut"i' to Ta, e7r' dK\oTpiyj<Tt re to aAAo-
Tpiijcri) the words resolve themselves into iambic trimeters: —
T»)9 Tuyv Ka^ovTiov e'iv€K€v (TUiT-qpia^
opff Ta Seti'a, 9iyya.U€t 5' aTjSe'wj',
aAAoTptj7<rt crvix(}>opjjcri.v iiiaj
KapiroiiTai AvTra?.
According to Valesius, Gregory Nazianzen in his first Oratio quotes
the last verse (xai to cw'aAAoTpi'ai? <ru/i<^opats iit'as KapjroOcrSat
AuTTas, in which there is no trace of the poetical form) with the
remark cis e(/)r) Tts twv Trap' e/ceiVoi; <joi\>mv; and Valesius adds:
" Ad quein locum Elias Cretensis notat verba hcec esse Hippo-
era lis que m Grcgorius NaziaJizcnus snpifiitis ciijusda»i nomine
desigitat." Moreover, Schwegler remarks that the words are taken
from Hippocrates. In a note ad locum he says: " Hippocratis
inedici (cf. Hippocr. de Flat, iiiit. p. 78, ed. Foes) glli^ endcin
Iniidnntiir et ab aliis Scriptoribns, vcliiti a Luciano in His.
.-iccus. c. I. p. 49, ed. Hip. Cf. quce intcrpretcs adnota^'er iitti
ad I.Hciani, I.e. Tom. VII. p. 400, ed. Hi])." I have not examined
thciic references, and can therefore form nu judgment in the matter.
) 2
372
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[X.4.
power as without harm ^ to minister to the
12 salvation of so many. But he alone having
reached our deep corruption, he alone hav-
ing taken upon himself our labors, he alone hav-
ing suffered the punishments due for our impie-
ties, having recovered us who were not half dead
merely, but were already in tombs and sepul-
chers, and altogether foul and offensive, saves us,
both anciently and now, by his beneficent zeal,
beyond the expectation of any one, even of our-
selves, and imparts liberally of the Father's
benefits, — he who is the giver of life and light,
our great Physician and King and Lord, the
13 Christ of God. For then when the whole
human race lay buried in gloomy night and
in depths of darkness through the deceitful arts
of guilty demons and the power of God-hating
spirits, by his simple appearing he loosed once
for all the fast-bound cords of our impieties by
the rays of his light, even as wax is melted.
14 But when malignant envy and the evil-
loving demon wellnigh burst with anger at
such grace and kindness, and turned against us
all his death-dealing forces, and when, at first,
like a dog gone mad which gnashes his teeth at
the stones thro\vn at him, and pours out his rage
against his assailants upon the inanimate mis-
siles, he leveled his ferocious madness at the
stones of the sanctuaries and at the lifeless mate-
rial of the houses, and desolated the churches,
— at least as he supposed, — and then emitted
terrible hissings and snake-like sounds, now by
the threats of impious tyrants, and again by
the blasphemous edicts of profane rulers, vomit-
ing forth death, moreover, and infecting with
his deleterious and soul-destroying poisons
the souls captured by him, and almost slaying
them by his death-fraught sacrifices of dead
idols, and causing every beast in the form of
man and every kind of savage to assault us,
15 — then, indeed, the ' Angel of the great
Council,'-"-' the great Captain* of God,
after the mightiest soldiers of his kingdom had
displayed sufficient exercise through patience
and endurance in everything, suddenly appeared
anew, and blotted out and annihilated his ene-
mies and foes, so that they seemed never to
have had even a name. But his friends and
relatives he raised to the highest glory, in the
presence not only of all men, but also of celes-
tial powers, of sun and moon and stars,
16 and of the whole heaven and earth, so that
now, as has never happened before, the su-
28 a/3Aa|3ui9. The application of the word is not perfectly clear,
but the meaning seems to be "without harm to himself," "un-
harmed." " He is the only one able to minister to our salvation
without sinking under the weight of the burden, or suffering from
his contact with us." Eusebius is perhaps thinking especially of
Christ's absolute sinlessness and victory over all temptation; per-
haps only in a more general way of the great strength needed for
such a task, strength possessed by Christ alone in sufficient measure
to prevent his own complete exhaustion under the immense task.
-'-' Cf. Isa. ix. 6. '•"> fie'yas opx'<rTpdTT)7os; tf. Josh. v. 13.
preme rulers, conscious of the honor which they
have received from him, spit upon the faces of
dead idols, trample upon the unhallowed rites
of demons, make sport of the ancient delusion
handed down from their fathers, and acknowl-
edge only one God, the common benefactor of all,
themselves included. And they confess Christ,
the Son of God, universal King of all, and pro-
claim him Saviour on monuments,^^ imperishably
recording in imperial letters, in the midst of the
city which rules over the earth, his righteous
deeds and his victories over the impious. Thus
Jesus Christ our Saviour is the only one from all
eternity who has been acknowledged, even by
those highest in the earth, not as a common
king among men, but as a true son of the uni-
versal God, and who has been worshiped
as very God,^- and that rightly. For what 17
king that ever lived attained such virtue as
to fill the ears and tongues of all men upon earth
with his own name ? What king, after ordaining
such pious and wise laws, has extended them
from one end of the earth to the other, so that
they are perpetually read in the hearing of
all men? Who has abrogated barbarous 18
and savage customs of uncivilized nations
by his gentle and most philanthropic laws ?
Who, being attacked for entire ages by all, has
shown such superhuman virtue as to flourish
daily, and remain young throughout his
life ? Who has founded a nation which of 19
old was not even heard of, but which now
is not concealed in some corner of the earth,
but is spread abroad everywhere under the sun ?
Who has so fortified his soldiers with the arms
of piety that their souls, being firmer than ada-
mant, shine brilliantly in the contests with
their opponents? What king prevails to 20
such an extent, and even after death leads
on his soldiers, and sets up trophies over his
^' This seems to be simply a rhetorical expression of what is
recorded in Bk. IX. chap. 9, in regard to the great statue of Constan-
tine with a cross in his hand, erected in Rome after his victory over
Maxentius. It is possible that other smaller monuments of a similar
kind were erected at the same time.
^- aiiToBioi'. The exact sense in which Eusebius uses this word
is open to dispute. That it asserts the .Son to be possessed ^i-r si\
in and of himself, of absolute deity, — that is, that he is self-existcnt,
— can hardly be maintained, though Valesius does maintain it. The
word admits some latitude of meaning, as Heinichen shows (in his
edition of Eusebius, III. p. 736 sq., lilclet. XX.), and its use does
not forbid a belief in the subordination of the Son. In my opinion it
clearly indicates a belief in an essential deity of the Son, but not
a full and absolute deity. Stein, in his Kuscbiiis, p. 138, re-
marks: " Eusebius wendet hicr die platonischen Ausdriicke nach
dem Vorbilde des Origenes auf das Wesen des Sohnes an. Nach
Origines bezeichnen diese Ausdriicke die Absolutheit des .Sohnes,
nach den Platonikern jedoch bedeuten sic nicht das hcichste Wesen.
Es ist nun Zwcifelhaft, ob Eusebius mit dicscn Begriffen den Sinn
des Origenes, oder den der Platoniker verkniipft habe." There
can be little doubt, in my opinion, that Eusebius followed Origen
so far as he understood him, but that he never carried the essential
deity of the Son so far as to cease to think of some kind of an
essential subordination. See the discussion of Eusebius' position,
on p. II sq. of this volume. I have translated the word a.vTo6i6v
" very God," because there seems to be no other phrase which
docs not necessarily express more, or less, than Eusebuis means by
the word. It must be remembered, however, that in using the phrase
which is commonly employed to translate the later Nicene aATjfliroi'
OtiJr, I do not use it iu ilie full sense thus ordinarily attached to it.
X.4.]
EUSEBIUS' DISCOURSE AT TYRE.
Z7Z
enemies, and fills every place, country and city,
Greek and barbarian, with his royal dwellings,
even divine temples with their consecrated obla-
tions, like this very temple with its superb
adornments and votive ofierings, which are
themselves so truly great and majestic, worthy
of wonder and admiration, and clear signs of
the sovereignty of our Saviour? For now, too,
* he spake, and they were made ; he commanded,
and they were created.' ^ For what was there
to resist the nod of the universal King and
Governor and AVord of God himself? ^*
" A special discourse would be needed ac-
21 curately to survey and explain all this ; and
also to describe how great the zeal of the
laborers is regarded by him who is celebrated
as divine,'^' who looks upon the living temple
which we all constitute, and surveys the house,
composed of living and moving stones, which
is well and surely built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, the chief cornerstone
being Jesus Christ himself, who has been re-
jected not only by the builders of that ancient
building which no longer stands, but also by the
builders — evil architects of evil works — of
the structure, which is composed of the mass
of men and still endures.^ But the Father
has approved him both then and now, and
has made him the head of the corner
22 of this our common church. Who that
beholds this living temple of the living God
formed of ourselves — this greatest and truly
divine sanctuary, I say, whose inmost shrines
are invisible to the multitude and are truly holy
and a holy of holies — would venture to declare
it ? Who is able even to look within the sacred
enclosure, except the great High Priest of all,
to whom alone it is permitted to fathom
23 the mysteries of every rational soul? But
perhaps it is granted to another, to one
only, to be second after him in the same work,
namely, to the commander of this army whom
the first and great High Priest himself has
honored with the second place in this sanc-
tuary, the shepherd of your divine flock who has
23 Psa. xxxiii. 9.
3* ToO 7ra/li^ao•lAeaJS xal Trai'ijye/oio^'O? Kai auToO 6eou Adyou.
Valesius translates, Verbi otntiium regis ac principis ac per se
Dei ; Closs, " des Wortes, das der Konig aller Konige, der oberste
Flirst und selbst Gott ist "; Cruse, " The universal King, the uni-
versal Prince, and God, the Word himself." A conception is thus
introduced which the clause as it stands, without the repetition of
the article with Adyov, seems to me hardly to warrant. At any rate,
the rendering which I have adopted seems more accurately to re-
produce the original.
35 SeoAoYOu/iiti'a). The use of the word 0eo\oyeia in the sense of
speaking of, or celebrating a person as divine, or attributing di-
vinity to a person, was very common among the Fathers, espe-
cially in connection with Christ. See Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v. II.
and Bk. V. chap. 28, § 4, above.
3s Eusebius' reference to these various buildings is somewhat
confusing. He speaks first of the Church of Chnst, " the living
temple which we all constitute"; then of the Jews, " the builders of
that ancient temple which no longer stands"; and finally, as it
seems, of the heathen, " builders of the structure which still endures
and is composed of the mass of men " (twi' ttoAAw^ audpuimuv) .
obtained your people by the allotment and the
judgment of the Father, as if he had appointed
him his own servant and interi)reter, a new
Aaron or Melchizedec, made like the Son of
God, remaining and continually preserved by
him in accordance with the united prayers
of all of you. To him therefore alone let 24
it be granted, if not in the first place, at
least in the second after the first and greatest
High Priest, to observe and supervise the in-
most state of your souls, — to him who by ex-
perience and length of time has accurately
proved each one, and who by his zeal and care
has disposed you all in pious conduct and doc-
trine, and is better able than any one else to give
an account, adequate to the facts, of those things
which he himself has accomplished with the
Divine assistance. As to our first and great 25
High Priest, it is said,'''' 'Whatsoever he
seeth the Father doing those things likewise the
Son also doeth."^ So also this one,''^ looking
up to him as to the first teacher, ivith pure eyes
of the mind, using as archetypes whatsoever
things he seeth him doing, produceth images of
them, making them so far as is possible in the
same likeness, in nothing inferior to that Beseleel,
whom God himself ' filled with the spirit of wis-
dom and understanding'"'" and with other tech-
nical and scientific knowledge, and called to be
the maker of the temple constructed after
heavenly types given in symbols. Thus this 26
one also bearing in his own soul the image
of the whole Christ, the Word, the Wisdom, the
Light, has formed this magnificent temple of the
highest God, corresponding to the pattern of
the greater as a visible to an invisible, it is
impossible to say with what greatness of soul,
with what wealth and liberality of mind, and
with what emulation on the part of all of you,
shown in the magnanimity of the contributors
who have ambitiously striven in no way to be left
behind by him in the execution of the same pur-
pose. And this place, — for this deserves to be
mentioned first of all, — which had been cov-
ered with all sorts of rubbish by the artifices of
our enemies he did not overlook, nor did he
yield to the wickedness of those who had brought
about that condition of things, although he might
have chosen some other place, for many other
sites were available in the city, where he would
have had less labor, and been free from
trouble. But having first aroused himself 27
to the work, and then strengthened the
whole people with zeal, and formed them all
into one great body, he fought the first contest.
For he thought that this church, which had been
3' Literally, " it says" (i|)t;cri), i.e. " the Scripture says."
3s John v. ig.
30 i.e. Paulinas. *" Ex. kxxv. 31.
374
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
tX.4.
especially besieged by the enemy, which had
first suffered and endured the same persecutions
with us and for us, like a mother bereft of her
children, should rejoice with us in the signal
28 favor of the all-merciful God. For when
the Great Shepherd had driven aAvay the
wild animals and wolves and every cruel and
savage beast, and, as the divine oracles say,
* had broken the jaws of the lions,' '^^ he thought
good to collect again her children in the same
place, and in the most righteous manner he set
up the fold of her flock, ' to put to shame
the enemy and avenger,'*^ and to refute the
impious daring of the enemies of God.'*''
29 And now they are not, — the haters of
God, — for they never were. After they
had troubled and been troubled for a little time,
they suffered the fitting punishment, and brought
themselves and their friends and their relatives
to total destruction, so that the declarations in-
scribed of old in sacred records have been
proved true by facts. In these declarations the
divine word truly says among other things
30 the following concerning them : ' The wicked
have drawn out the sword, they have bent
their bow, to slay the righteous in heart ; let
their sword enter into their own heart and their
bows be broken.' ^ And again : ' Their memo-
rial is perished with a sound ' ^ and ' their name
hast thou blotted out forever and ever ' ; ■*" for
when they also were in trouble they ' cried out,
and there was none to save : unto the Lord, and
he heard them not.' *' But ' their feet were
bound together, and they fell, but we have
arisen and stand upright.' '"^ And that which
was announced beforehand in these words, —
* O Lord, in thy city thou shalt set at naught
their image,' ^^ — has been shown to be true
31 to the eyes of all. But having waged war
like the giants against God,^" they died in
this way. But she that was desolate and re-
jected by men received the consummation which
we behold in consequence of her jDatience
toward God, so that the prophecy of Isaiah
32 was spoken of her : ' Rejoice, thirsty desert,
let the desert rejoice and blossom as the
lily, and the desert places shall blossom and be
glad.'''^ 'Be strengthened, ye weak hands and
feeble knees. Be of good courage, ye feeble-
hearted, in your minds ; be strong, fear not.
Behold our God recompenseth judgment and
will recompense, he will come and save us.'"'
*' Psa. Iviii. 6. Euscbius agrees with the LXX, which reads
Ta? fjiv\a^ Tuii' Atoi'Tcui'.
" Psa. viiL ». The LXX has KaraAOo-oi instead of Eusebius'
Karai<T\vi/aL.
*3 Literally, "the God-fighting, daring deeds of the impious"
(toi? 0eoiJia.\oi.i riuv oire^aii' ToA^ais) . ** Psa. xxxvii. 14, 15.
<'■' Psa. ix. 6. Euscbius agrees with the LXX in reading /j^st'
^Xow '• " with a sound."
*" /AiV/. 5. 48 /6id. XX. 8.
" Psa. xviii. 41. *» /itd. Ixxiii. 20.
•■* Cf. Bk. L chap. 2, § 19, above, and the note on that passage.
" Isa. XXXV. I. M /iiti. 3, 4.
' For,' he says, ' in the wilderness water has
broken out, and a pool in thirsty ground, and
the dry land shall be watered meadows, and
in the thirsty ground there shall be springs
of water.' ^^ These things which were 33
prophesied long ago have been recorded
in sacred books ; but no longer are they trans-
mitted to us by hearsay merely, but in facts.
This desert, this dry land, this widowed and
deserted one, ' whose gates they cut down with
axes like wood in a forest, whom they broke
down with hatchet and hammer,' ^^ whose books
also they destroyed,^^ ' burning with fire the
sanctuary of God, and profaning unto the ground
the habitation of his name,' ^'"' ' whom all that
passed by upon the way plucked, and whose
fences they broke down, whom the boar out of
the wood ravaged, and on which the savage
wild beast fed,' ^'' now by the wonderful power
of Christ, when he wills it, has become like a
lily. For at that time also she was chastened at
his nod as by a careful father ; ' for whom the
Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth
every son whom he receiveth.'^^ Then after 34
being chastened in a measure, according to
the necessities of the case, she is commanded to
rejoice anew ; and she blossoms as a lily and
exhales her divine odor among all men. ' For,'
it is said, ' water hath broken out in the wilder-
ness,'^^ the fountain of the saving bath of divine
regeneration.** And now she, who a little before
was a desert, 'has become watered meadows,
and springs of water have gushed forth in a
thirsty land.' ®^ The hands which before were
' weak ' have become ' truly strong ' ; "" and these
works are great and convincing proofs of strong
hands. The knees, also, which before were
' feeble and infirm,' recovering their wonted
strength, are moving straight forward in the
path of divine knowledge, and hastening to the
kindred flock '"'■'' of the all-gracious Shepherd.
And if there are any whose souls have been 35
stupefied by the threats of the tyrants, not
even they are passed by as incurable by the
saving Word ; but he heals them also and urges
them on to receive divine comfort, saying, * Be
ye comforted, ye who are faint-hearted ; be
ye strengthened, fear not.""'^ This our new 36
and excellent Zerubabel, having heard the
word which announced beforehand, that she who
had been made a desert on account of God
should enjoy these things, after the bitter cap-
os /iiti. 6, 7. '^ Psa. Ixxiv. 5, 6.
^^ Diocletian's first edict included the destruction of the sacred
books of the Christians, as well as of their churches. See above,
Bk. VIH. chap. 2.
'■" Psa. Ixxiv. 7. f'^ fiiW. Ixxx. 12, 13.
r* Hcb. xii. 6, with which Euscbius agrees exactly, differing
from Prov. iii. 12 in the use of 7roi6cuei instead of e'At-yxf '•
'"" Isa. XXXV. 6.
"O T^s fltio? ToO (TUTTipcov AouTooO rraKiyyevtaiai. Cf. Titus
iii. 5.
"' Lsa. XXXV. 7.
0= /<5/V/. 3.
'* Isa. XXXV. 4.
X. 4-]
EUSEBIUS' DISCOURSE AT TYRE.
375
tivity and the abomination of desolation, did
not overlook the dead body ; but first of all
with prayers and supplications propitiated the
Father with the common consent of all of you,
and invoking the only one that giveth life to the
dead as his ally and fellow-worker, raised her
that was foUen, after purifying and freeing her
from her ills. And he clothed her not with the
ancient garment, but with such an one as he had
again learned from tlie sacred oracles, which say
clearly, * And the latter glory of this house
37 shall be greater than the former.' ^^ Thus,
enclosing a much larger space, he fortified
the outer court with a wall surrounding the
whole, which should serve as a most secure
38 bulwark for the entire edifice."^ And he
raised and spread out a great and lofty ves-
tibule toward the rays of the rising sun,"^ and
furnished those standing far without the sacred
enclosure a full view of those within, almost
turning the eyes of those who were strangers
to the faith, to the entrances, so that no one
could pass by without being impressed by the
memory of the former desolation and of the
present incredible transformation. His hope
was that such an one being impressed by this
might be attracted and be induced to
39 enter by the very sight. But when one
comes within the gates he does not permit
him to enter the sanctuary immediately, with im-
pure and unwashed feet ; but leaving as large a
space as possible between the temple and the
outer entrance, he has surrounded and adorned it
with four transverse cloisters, making a quadran-
gular space with pillars rising on every side, which
he has joined with lattice-work screens of wood,
rising to a suitable height ; and he has left an
open space ^^ in the middle, so that the sky can
be seen, and the free air bright in the rays
40 of the sun. Here he has placed symbols
•'■' Hag. ii. g.
•''' The description of the church of Tyre which follows is very
valuable, as being the oldest detailed description which we have of a
Christian basilica. Eusebius mentions other churches in his I'lia
CoHstaniini, III. 30-39, 41-43, 48, 50, 51-53, 58, IV. 58, and de-
scribes some of them at considerable length. We have a number of
descriptions from later sources, but rely for our knowledge of early
Christian architecture chiefly upon the extant remains of the edifices
themselves. For a very full discussion of the present church, which
was an excellent example of an ancient Christian basilica, and for a
detailed description of its various parts, see Bingham's Aniiqidiies,
Bk. VIII. chap. 3 sq., and compare also the article Basiiika in
Y^xa.M'^ Rcal-Encycloplidie der Christ. Altcrth'u»ier. The liter-
ature on the general subject of early Christian architecture is verj'
extensive. See more particularly the works referred to in the arti-
cles in Smith and Cheetham's Diet, of Christ. Antiq. and in the
Encyclop. Britanitica ; and cf. also Schaff's Ch. Hist. III. p. 538 sq.
ij' Bingham remarks that the ancient basilicas commonly faced the
west, and that therefore the position of this church of Tyre was ex-
ceptional; but this is a mistake. It is true that from the fifth cen-
tury on, the altar almost uniformly occupied the east end of the
church, but previous to that time the position observed in the pres-
ent case was almost universally followed, so that the present building
was not at all exceptional in its position. See the article Orienticr-
uno- in Kraus' Real-Encyclof>adie. Although the common custom
was to have the church stand east and west, yet the rule was often
neglected, and there exist many notable examples of churches stand-
ing north and south, or quite out of line with the points of the
compass.
i^ al^ptoi', the Latin atrium.
of sacred purifications, setting up fountains
opposite the temple which furnish an abundance
of water wherewith those who come within the
sanctuary may jjurify themselves. This is the
first halting-place of those who enter ; and it
furnishes at the same time a beautiful and splen-
did scene to every one, and to those who still
need elementary instruction a fitting sta-
tion. But passing by this spectacle, he has 41
made open entrances to the temple with
many other vestibules within, placing three doors
on one side, likewise facing the rays of the sun.
The one in the middle, adorned with plates of
bronze, iron bound, and beautifiilly embossed,
he has made much higher and broader than the
others, as if he were making them guards for
it as for a queen. In the same way, arrang- 42
ing the number of vestibules for the corri-
dors on each side of the whole temple, he has
made above them various openings into the
building, for the purpose of admitting more light,
adorning them with very fine wood-carving. But
the royal house he has furnished v/ith more beau-
tiful and splendid materials, using unstinted
liberality in his disbursements. It seems 43
to me superfluous to describe here in detail
the length and breadth of the building, its
splendor and its majesty surpassing description,
and the brilliant appearance of the work, its
lofty pinnacles reaching to the heavens, and the
costly cedars of Lebanon above them, which
the divine oracle has not omitted to mention,
saying, 'The trees of the Lord shall rejoice
and the cedars of Lebanon which he hath
planted.' ^'^ Why need I now describe the 44
skillful architectural arrangement and the sur-
passing beauty of each part, when the testimony
of the eye renders instruction through the ear
superfluous? For when he had thus completed
the temple, he provided it with lofty thrones
in honor of those who preside, and in addition
with seats arranged in proper order throughout
the whole building, and finally placed in the
middle ™ the holy of holies, the altar, and, that
it might be inaccessible to the multitude, en-
closed it with wooden lattice-work, accurately
wrought \\A\h artistic camng, presenting a
wonderful sight to the beholders. And not 45
even the pavement was neglected by him ;
for this too he adorned with beautiful marble
of every variety. Then finally he passed on to
the parts without the temple, providing spacious
e-\edra2 and buildings '^ on each side, which were
"" Psa. civ. i6.
"" i.e. in the apse, or chancel, not in the middle of the nave, or
body of the church.
•' i^ihpa.^ Kai oiKous. Large basilicas were always provided
with additional rooms, and adjacent buildings, such as baptisteries,
diaconica, secretaria, &c., which were used for various ecclesiastical
purposes, and which were often of considerable size, so that impor-
tant synods frequently met in one or another of them. Cf. Bingham,
ibid, chap. 7.
Zl^
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBHJS.
[X.4.
joined to the basilica, and communicated with
the entrances to the interior of the structure.
These were erected by our most peaceful "
Solomon, the maker of the temple of God, for
those who still needed purification and sprin-
kling by water and the Holy Spirit, so that the
prophecy quoted above is no longer a word
merely, but a fact ; for now it has also come
46 to pass that in truth ' the latter glory of
this house is greater than the former.'"
For it was necessary and fitting that as her
shepherd and Lord had once tasted death for
her, and after his suffering had changed that
vile body which he assumed in her behalf into
a splendid and glorious body, leading the very
flesh which had been delivered^'' from corrup-
tion to incorruption, she too should enjoy the
dispensations of the Saviour. For having re-
ceived from him the promise of much greater
things than these, she desires to share uninter-
ruptedly throughout eternity with the choir of
the angels of light, in the far greater glory of
regeneration,'"' in the resurrection of an incor-
ruptible body, in the palace of God beyond the
heavens, with Christ Jesus himself, the uni-
47 versal Benefactor and Saviour. But for the
present, she that was formerly widowed and
desolate is clothed by the grace of God with
these flowers, and is become truly like a lily, as
the prophecy says,'" and having received the
bridal garment and the crown of beauty, she is
taught by Isaiah to dance, and to present her
thank-offerings unto God the King in rever-
48 ent words. Let us hear her saying, ' My
soul shall rejoice in the Lord ; for he hath
clothed me with a garment of salvation and
with a robe of gladness ; he hath bedecked me
like a bridegroom with a garland, and he hath
adorned me like a bride with jewels ; and like
the earth which bringeth forth her bud, and like
a garden which causeth the things that are
sown in it to spring forth, thus the Lord God
hath caused righteousness and praise to
49 spring forth before all the nations.'" In
these words she exults. And in similar
words the heavenly bridegroom, the Word Jesus
Christ himself, answers her. Hear the Lord
saying, 'Fear not because thou hast been put
to shame, neither be thou confounded because
thou hast been rebuked ; for thou shalt forget
the former shame, and the reproach of thy
widowhood shalt thou remember no more.'"
' Not ''•* as a woman deserted and faint-hearted
" ITic name Solomon (Ileb. rJCi^C) means " peaceful."
" Hag. ii. 9.
"* Kv6t'i.aa.v, which m.iy mean .-ilso " dissolved, decayed." Crusi
translates " dissolved "; Closs, " schon vcrwesend."
•» Cf. Matt. xix. 28. '' Isa. Ixi. 10, 11.
'" Sec Isa. XXXV. i. _ '" //■/,/. liv. 4.
"" The word " not" is omitted in the Hebrew (and consequently
in our Engluh vcriiions), but is found in the LXX.
hath the Lord called thee, nor as a woman
hated from her youth, saith thy God. For
a small moment have I forsaken thee, but
with great mercy will I have mercy upon
thee ; in a little wrath I hid my face from thee,
but with everlasting mercy will I have mercy
upon thee, saith the Lord that hath re-
deemed thee.' ^ ' Awake, awake, thou who 50
hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup
of his fury ; for thou hast drunk the cup of ruin,
the vessel of my wrath, and hast drained it.
And there was none to console thee of all thy
sons whom thou didst bring forth, and there was
none to take thee by the hand.' ^' ' Behold, I
have taken out of thine hand the cup of ruin,
the vessel of my fury, and thou shalt no longer
drink it. And I will put it into the hands of
them that have treated thee unjustly and
have humbled thee.' ^' ' Awake, awake, put 51
on thy strength, put on thy glory. Shake
off the dust and arise. Sit thee down, loose the
bands of thy neck.' ^ ' Lift up thine eyes round
about and behold thy children gathered to-
gether ; behold they are gathered together and
are come to thee. As I live, saith the Lord,
thou shalt clothe thee with them all as with an
ornament, and gird thyself with them as with
the ornaments of a bride. For thy waste and
corrupted and ruined places shall now be too
narrow by reason of those that inhabit thee, and
they that swallow thee up shall be far from
thee. For thy sons whom thou hast lost 52
shall say in thine ears, The place is too nar-
row for me, give place to me that I may dwell.
Then shalt thou say in thine heart, \Vho hath
begotten me these? I am childless and a
widow, and who hath brought up these for me ?
I was left alone, and these, where were they for
me ? ' »*
" These are the things which Isaiah fore- 53
told ; and which were anciently recorded
concerning us in sacred books ; and it was neces-
sary that we should sometime learn their
truthfulness by their fulfillment. For when 54
the bridegroom, the Word, addressed such
language to his own bride, the sacred and holy
Church, this bridesman,*^'' — when she was deso-
late and lying like a corpse, bereft of hope in
the eyes of men, — in accordance with the
united prayers of all of you, as was proper,
stretched out your hands and aroused and raised
her up at the command of God, the universal
King, and at the manifestation of the jiower of
Jesus Christ ; and having raised her he estab-
lished her as he had learned from the de-
scription given in the sacred oracles. This 55
«" Isa. liv. 6-8. 82 /i,-J_ \l 22, 23.
«> /6l\/. Ii. 17, 18. 83 /6£J, lii. I, 2.
8* /ii</. xlix. 1 8-21.
»'' ^ufK/ioffToAos, referring to Paulinus.
X.4.]
EUSEBIUS' DISCOURSE AT TYRli.
Zll
is indeed a very great wonder, passing all
admiration, especially to those who attend only
to the outward appearance ; but more wonderful
than wonders are the archetypes and their mental
I)rototypes and divine models ; I mean the re-
productions of the inspired and rational
56 building in our souls. This the Divine Son
himself created after his own image, impart-
ing to it everywhere and in all respects the like-
ness of God, an incorruptible nature, incorporeal,
rational, free from all earthly matter, a being
endowed with its own intelligence ; and when
he had once called her forth from non-existence
into existence, he made her a holy spouse, an
all-sacred temple for himself and for the Father.
This also he clearly declares and confesses in
the following words : ' I will dwell in them and
will walk in them ; and I will be their God, and
they shall be my people.' ^^ Such is the perfect
and purified soul, so made from the beginning
as to bear the image of the celestial Word.
57 But when by the envy and zeal of the malig-
nant demon she became, of her own volun-
tary choice, sensual and a lover of evil, the
Deity left her ; and as if bereft of a protector,
she became an easy prey and readily accessible
to those who had long envied her ; and being
assailed by the batteries and machines of her
invisible enemies and spiritual foes, she suffered
a terrible fall, so that not one stone of virtue
remained upon another in her, but she lay
completely dead upon the ground, entirely di-
vested of her natural ideas of God.
58 " But as she, who had been made in the
image of God, thus lay prostrate, it was
not that wild boar from the forest which we see
that despoiled her, but a certain destroying
demon and spiritual wild beasts who deceived
her with their passions as with the fiery darts
of their own wickedness, and burned the truly
divine sanctuary of God with fire, and profaned
to the ground the tabernacle of his name. Then
burying the miserable one with heaps of earth,
they destroyed every hope of deliverance.
59 But that divinely bright and saving Word,
her protector, after she had suffered the
merited punishment for her sins, again restored
her, securing the favor of the all-merciful
60 Father. Having won over first the souls of
the highest rulers, he purified, through the
agency of those most divinely favored princes,
the whole earth from all the impious destroyers,
and from the terrible and God-hating tyrants
themselves. Then bringing out into the light
those who were his friends, who had long before
been consecrated to him for life, but in the midst,
as it were, of a storm of evils, had been concealed
under his shelter, he honored them worthily
^^ 2 Cor. vi. i6.
with the great gifts of the Spirit. And again, by
means of them, he cleared out and cleaned with
sjiades and mattocks — the admonitory words
of doctrine**^ — the souls which a little while
before had been covered with filth and burdened
with every kind of matter and rubbish of
impious ordinances. And when he had 61
made the ground of all your minds clean
and clear, he finally committed it to this all-
wise and God-beloved Ruler, who, being en-
dowed with judgment and prudence, as well as
with other gifts, and being able to examine and
discriminate accurately the minds of those com-
mitted to his charge, from the first day, so to
speak, down to the jDresent, has not ceased to
build. Now he has supplied the brilliant gold,
again the refined and unalloyed silver, and the
precious and costly stones in all of you, so that
again is fulfilled for you in facts a sacred
and mystic prophecy, which says, * Behold 62
I make thy stone a carbuncle, and thy
foundations of sapphire, and thy battlements of
jasper, and thy gates of crystals, and thy wall of
chosen stones ; and all thy sons shall be taught
of God, and thy children shall enjoy complete
peace ; and in righteousness shalt thou be
built.' '^^ Building therefore in righteousness, 63
he divided the whole people according to
their strength. With some he fortified only the
outer enclosure, walling it up with unfeigned
faith ; such were the great mass of the people
who were incapable of bearing a greater struc-
ture. Others he permitted to enter the build-
ing, commanding them to stand at the door and
act as guides for those who should come in ;
these may be not unfitly compared to the vesti-
bules of the temple. Others he supported by
the first pillars which are placed without about
the quadrangular hall, initiating them into the
first elements of the letter of the four Gospels.
Still others he joined together about the basilica
on both sides ; these are the catechumens who
are still advancing and progressing, and are not
far separated from the inmost view of divine
things granted to the faithful. Taking from 64
among these the pure souls that have been
cleansed like gold by divine washing,*'' he then
supports them by pillars, much better than those
without, made from the inner and mystic teach-
ings of the Scripture, and illumines them '^
by windows. Adorning the whole temple 65
with a great vestibule of the glory of the
one universal King and only God, and placing
87 Tais TrATjKTiKais Tuiv naBrjuaTuv SiSauKaKia^.
^^ Isa. liv. 11-14.
sa O(iu) AovTpw; i.e. baptism.
0" Heinichen, followed by Closs, reads tous ij-cv . . . tous Si:
" Some of them he supports by pillars . . . others of them he
illumines by windows." But all the MSS. read tovs y~iv . . . tois
&f, which, in view of the general character of Eusebius' style through-
out this oration, we are hardly justified in changing. I have there-
fore followed Valesius, Burton, and Crus6 in retaining the readmg
of the MSS,
Z1^
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[X.4.
on either side of the authority of the Father,
Christ, and the Holy Spirit as second lights, he
exhibits abundantly and gloriously throughout
the entire building the clearness and splendor
of the truth of the rest in all its details. And
having selected from every quarter the living
and moving and well-prepared stones of the
souls, he constructs out of them all the great and
royal house, splendid and full of light both within
and without ; for not only soul and understand-
ing, but their body also is made glorious by the
blooming ornament of purity and modesty.
66 And in this temple there are also thrones,
and a great number of seats and benches,
in all those souls in which sit the Holy Spirit's
gifts, such as were anciently seen by the sacred
apostles, and those who were with them, when
there * appeared unto them tongues parting asun-
der, like as of fire, and sat upon each one
67 of them.'^^ But in the leader of all it is
reasonable to suppose ^- that Christ himself
dwells in his fullness,"'^ and in those that occupy
the second rank after him, in proportion as
each is able to contain the power of Christ and
of the Holy Spirit.'''^ And the souls of some —
of those, namely, who are committed to each
of them for instruction and care — may be
68 seats for angels. But the great and august
and unique altar, what else could this be
than the pure holy of holies of the soul of the
common priest of all? Standing at the right
of it, Jesus himself, the great High Priest of
the universe, the Only Begotten of God, receives
with bright eye and extended hand the sweet
incense from all, and the bloodless and imma-
terial sacrifices offered in their prayers, and bears
them to the heavenly Father and God of the
universe. And he himself first worships him,
and alone gives to the Father the reverence
which is his due, beseeching him also to con-
tinue always kind and propitious to us all.
69 " Such is the great temple which the great
Creator of the universe, the Word, has built
throughout the entire world, making it an intel-
lectual image upon earth of those things which lie
abovQ the vault of heaven, so that throughout the
whole creation, including rational beings on earth,
his Father might be honored and adored.
70 But the region above the heavens, with the
models of earthly things which are there,
and the so-called Jerusalem above,"'' and the
heavenly Mount of Zion, and the su])ramundane
city of the living (iod, in which innumerable
choirs of angels and the Church of the first
born, whose names are written in heaven,'""
"' Acts ii. 3. "- icios.
"3 aiiTO! oAo? iyKaOriTai ■XPi.<rT6<;.
** Valesius remarks, " Sic Hirrouyinus seit guts alius tie
ordinibus ecclesiie : in illis esse partes ct iiieinbra I'irtittem,
in cpiscopo ploiititdineiit divinitatis /laliitare." From what source
the quotation comes I do not know.
"i Cf. Gal. iv. 26. »« Cf. Heb. xii. 22, 23.
praise their Maker and the Supreme Ruler of
the universe with hymns of praise unutterable
and incomprehensible to us, — who that is mor-
tal is able worthily to celebrate this ? * For eye
hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered
into the heart of men those things which God
hath prepared for them that love him.' '•^''
Since we, men, children, and women, small 71
and great, are already in part partakers of
these things, let us not cease all together, with
one spirit and one soul, to confess and praise the
author of such great benefits to us, ' Who for-
giveth all our iniquities, who healeth all our dis-
eases, who redeemeth our life from destruction,
who crowneth us with mercy and compassion,
who satisfieth our desires with good things.' '•'^
' For he hath not dealt with us according to our
sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniqui-
ties ; ' '•'^ ' for as far as the east is from the west,
so far hath he removed our iniquities from us.
Like as a father pitieth his own children, so
the Lord pitieth them that fear him.' ^'^
Rekindling these thoughts in our memories, 72
both now and during all time to come, and
contemplating in our mind night and day, in
every hour and with every breath, so to speak,
the Author and Ruler of the present festival, and
of this bright and most splendid day, let us love
and adore him with every power of the soul.
And now rising, let us beseech him with loud
voice to shelter and preserve us to the end in
his fold, granting his unbroken and unshaken
peace forever, in Christ Jesus our Saviour ;
through whom be the glory unto him forever
and ever. ^°^ Amen."
CHAPTER V.
Copies of Imperial Laws}
Let us finally subjoin the translations
from the Roman tongue of the imperial de-
crees of Constantine and Licinius.
'■" 1 Cor. ii. 9.
"' Psa. ciii. 3-5.
»» Ibid. TO.
i"» Ibid. 12, 13.
"" f is Toil? (Tii/xTrai'Tat alCiVat; Tcuv aluivuiv.
' Heinichen gives 'Avriypaijia. ^acrtAiKwi' vo/Jioiv rrepl rStv Xpi<TTi.-
ai'o'i^ TTpocriqKoi'TMV as the title of this chapter. All but three of the
MSS., however, agree in limiting the title to the first three words,
the last four bcint; given by the majority of them as the title of
chap. 6. The words are quite out of place at the head of that chap-
ter, which in two important I\ISS., followed by Strolh, is made a
part of chap. 5. Heinichen inserts the words at this point because
they are out of place in the position in which they commonly occur;
but the truth is, they are no better adapted to the present chapter
than to that one, for only one of the edicts quoted in this chapter
has reference to the property of Christians. It seems to me much
more likely that the words were originally written in the margin of
some codex opposite that particular rescript, and thence by an error
slipped into the text at the head of a later one, which was then made
a separate chapter. In view of tlie uncertainty, however, as to the
original position of the words, I have followed Laemmer, Schwegler,
Stroth, Closs, and btigloher, in omittiog tbcm altogether.
X.5-]
EDICT OF MILAN.
379
2 Copy of imperial decrees translated from
the Roman tongue?
" Perceiving long ago that religious liberty
ought not to be denied, but that it ought to be
granted to the judgment and desire of each
intlividual to perform his religious duties accord-
ing to his own choice, we had given orders that
every man. Christians as well as others, should
preserve the faith of his own sect and re-
3 ligion.^ But since in that rescript, in which
such liberty was granted them, many and various
conditions ^ seemed clearly added, some of them,
it may be, after a little retired from such
4 obser/ance. When I, Constantine Augus-
tus, and I, Licinius Augustus, came under
favorable auspices to Milan and took under con-
sideration everything which pertained to the
common weal and prosperity, we resolved among
other things, or rather first of all, to make such
decrees as seemed in many respects for the
benefit of every one ; namely, such as should
preserve reverence and piety toward the deity.
We resolved, that is, to grant both to the Chris-
tians and to all men freedom to follow the re-
ligion which they choose, that whatever heav-
enly divinity exists ^ may be propitious to us and
to all that live under our government.
5 We have, therefore, determined, with sound
and upright purpose, that liberty is to be
denied to no one, to choose and to follow the
religious observances of the Christians, but that
- This is the famous Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and
Licinius late in the year 312, after the former's victory over Maxen-
tius (see above, Bk. IX. chap. 9, note 7). The edict has a claim
to be remembered as the first announcement of the great doctrine
of complete freedom of conscience, and that not for one religion only,
but for all religions. In this respect it was a great advance upon
the edict of Galerius, which had granted conditional liberty to a
single faith. The greater part of the edict (beginning with § 4) is
extant in its original Latin form in Lactantius' De mart. pcys.
chap. 48. The Greek translation is still less accurate than the transla-
tion ofthe edict of Galerius given in Bk. VIII. chap. 17, above, but the
variations from the original are none of them of great importance.
The most marked ones will be mentioned in the notes.
3 The reference in this sentence is not, as was formerly sup-
posed, to a lost edict of Constantine and Licinius, but to the
edict of Galerius, as is proved by IMason (p. 327 sq.), who has
completely exploded the old belief in three edicts of toleration, and
has shown that there were only two; viz. that of Galerius, Constan-
tine, and Licinius, published in 311, and the present one, issued by
Constantine and Licinius in 312
* The Greek word is aipco-ei?, which has been commonly
translated " sects," and the reference has been supposed to
be to various schismatic bodies included in the former edict, but,
as Mason remarks, such an interpretation is preposterous, and
introduces an idea in direct contradiction to the entire tenor of
the present document. The fact is that, although " sects " is the
natural translation of the word oipco-ei?, we find the same word in
§ 6, below, used to translate conditioiies, and it may be reasonably
assumed — in fact, it may be regarded as certain in view of the con-
text— that in the present case the same word stood in the Latin
original. I have no hesitation, therefore, in adopting the rendering
which I have given in the text. These " conditions," then, to which
the edict refers were enumerated, not in the former edict itself, but
in the rescript which accompanied it (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 17,
note 9). What these conditions were may be conjectured, as re-
marked in that note, from the provisions of the present edict (cf
Mason, p. 330 S(j.).
* 6 Ti TTOTe eoTi Seidrrj! Kal oupai'i.'ou TrpayjiaTO?. Latin: quo
guidem divinitas in sede calesti. The Greek is by no means a
reproduction of the sense of the Latin, and indeed, as it stands, is
quite untranslatable. I have contented myself with a paraphrase,
which does not express what the Greek translator says, but perhaps
is not sntirely at variance with what he meant to say.
to each one freedom is to be given to devote
his mind to that religion which he may think
adapted to himself," in order that the Deity
may exhibit to us in all things his accus-
tomed care and favor. It was fitting that 6
we should write that this is our jjleasure,
that those conditions^ being entirely left out
which were contained in our former letter con-
cerning the Christians which was sent to your
devotedness, everything that seemed very
severe and foreign to our mildness may be an-
nulled, and that now every one who has the
same desire to observe the religion of the
Christians may do so without molestation.
We have resolved to communicate this 7
most fully to thy care, in order that thou
mayest know that we have granted to these
same Christians freedom and full liberty to
observe their own religion. Since this has 8
been granted freely by us to them, thy de-
votedness perceives that liberty is granted to
others also who may wish to follow their own
religious observances ; it being clearly in accord-
ance with the tranquillity of our times, that each
one should have the liberty of choosing and
worshiping whatever deity he pleases. This has
been done by us in order that we might not
seem in any way to discriminate against
any rank or religion.^ And we decree still 9
further in regard to the Christians, that their
places, in which they were formerly accustomed
to assemble, and concerning which in the former
letter sent to thy devotedness a different command
was given,^ if it appear that any have bought
them either from our treasury or from any other
person, shall be restored to the said Christians,
without demanding money or any other equiva-
lent, with no delay or hesitation. If any happen
to have received the said places as a gift, they
shall restore them as quickly as possible to
these same Christians : with the understand- 10
ing that if those who have bought these
places, or those who have received them as a
gift, demand anything from our bounty, they
may go to the judge of the district, that pro-
vision may be made for them by our clemency.
All these things are to be granted to the society
of Christians by your care immediately and
" In this sentence it is stated distinctly, not simply that Chris-
tians may remain Christians, but that anybody that pleases may
become a Christian; that is, that the fullest liberty is granted to
every man either to observe his ancestral religion or to choose
another.
" Greek, aipecreioi'; Latin, cotiditionibiis (see note 4, above).
8 nrjSe/nia TIH17 ti.T\hi OpiqcrKeia Tui. Latin, honcri, iiegue cui-
quam rciigioiii. Mason concludes from this clause that in the
rescript which accompanied the previous edict Christians had been
excluded from certain official positions.
" That there was some condition attached in the last rescript to
the restoration of their property to the Christians is clear from these
words. We may gather from what follows that the Christians were
obliged to pay something for the restored property, either to the
occupants or to the government. Constantine states that henceforth
the imperial treasury will freely bear all the expense involved in the
transfer.
38o
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
Cx-s.
11 without any delay. And since the said
Christians are known to have possessed not
only those places in which they were accustomed
to assemble, but also other places, belonging
not to individuals among them, but to the soci-
ety ^° as a whole, that is, to the society of Chris-
tians, you will command that all these, in virtue
of the law which we have above stated, be re-
stored, without any hesitation, to these same
Christians ; that is, to their society and congre-
gation : the above-mentioned provision being of
course observed, that those who restore them
without price, as we have before said, may
12 expect indemnification from our bounty. In
all these things, for the behoof of the afore-
said society of Christians, you are to use the
utmost diligence, to the end that our command
may be speedily fulfilled, and that in this also, by
our clemency, provision may be made for
13 the common and public tranquillity." For
by this means,^- as we have said before, the
divine favor towarei us which we have already
experienced in many matters will continue
14 sure through all time. And that the terms
of this our gracious ordinance may be known
to all, it is expected that this which we have
written will be published everywhere by you
and brought to the knowledge of all, in order
that this gracious ordinance of ours may remain
unknown to no one."
15 Copy of another imperial deerce which
they issued^'' indicating that the grant
was made to the Catholic Church alone.
" Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anuli-
nus. It is the custom of our benevolence, most
esteemed Anulinus, to will that those things
10 Tiu (TiofxaTiiA Latin, corpori. The use of this word (which we
might ahnost translate " body corporate ") is a distinct recognition
of the full legal status of the Christian Church, and of their ritjht as
a corporation in the eyes of the law to hold property. The right did
not on this occasion receive recognition for the first time, but more
distinctly and in broader terms than ever before. Upon the right of
the Church to hold property before the publication of this edict, see
especially Hatch's Constitution of the Early Christian Churches,
p. 152, note 25.
" Greek, 7^5 Koivr)% Ka\. S-rjixoaia's i^cruxi'as. Latin, more simply,
quieti publicif.
1- Toiiro) '^a.p Tw Ao7i(T/xuJ. Latin, hactenus.
'3 It would seem that this communication was sent to Anulinus
soon after the issue of the Edict of Milan; for it gives directions for
the carrying out of some of the provisions made in that edict, and is
very likely but a sample of special letters sent in connection with
that document to the governors of the various provinces. We know
from the next chapter that Anulinus was proconsul of the Roman
province of Africa, of which Carthage was the capital city, and
which was very thickly populated with Christians. Of Anulinus
himself we know only what we can learn from this and the next two
chapters. The title of the rescript as given by Eusebius is some-
what misleading. 'I'here is no indication in the document itself that
it was written with the distinct purpose of distinguishing the Catho-
lic Church from schismatic bodies, and granting it privileges denied
to them. If such had been its aim, it would certainly have stated it
more clearly. The term " Catholic Church" (in § 16) seems in fact
to be used m a general sense to indicate the Christian Church as a
whole. It is, to be sure, possible that Constantine may already
have had some knowledge of the schismatics whom he refers to in
another epistle, quoted in the next chapter; but his omission of all
reference to them in the present case shows that he did not intend at
this time to draw lines between parties, or to pass judgment upon
any society calling itself a Chribtiau church.
which belong of right to another should not
only be left unmolested, but should also be
restored.'* ^Vherefore it is our will that 16
when thou receivest this letter, if any such
things belonged to the Catholic Church of the
Christians, in any city or other place, but are
now held by citizens ^'^ or by any others, thou
shalt cause them to be restored immediately to
the said churches. For we have already de-
termined that those things which these same
churches formerly possessed shall be re-
stored to them. Since therefore thy devot- 17
edness perceives that this command of ours
is most explicit, do thou make haste to restore
to them, as quickly as possible, everything which
formerly belonged to the said churches, —
whether gardens or buildings or whatever they
may be, — that we may learn that thou hast
obeyed this decree of ours most carefully. Fare-
well, our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus."
Copy of an epistle in which the Emperor 18
commands that a synod of bishops be
held at Rome in behalf of the unity and con-
cord of the churches}^
^* i.e. that if they have been molested, or taken from their
owners, they should be restored.
'^ TToAiTwv. Valesius conjectures that TroAireuTcoi' should be read
instead of TroAtruic, and therefore translates a decurionibus. Cruse,
following him, reads " by the decurions." The correction, however,
though an improvement, is not necessary, and I have not felt justi-
fied in adopting it.
K* This and the next epistle were occasioned by the Donatist schism.
This great schism arose after the close of the Diocletian persecution,
and divided the church of North Africa for more than a century.
Like the Novatian schism, it was due to the conflict of the more
rigid and the more indulgent theories of discipline. In Novatianism,
however, the burning question was the readmission of the lapsed;
in Donatism, the validity of clerical functions performed by unholy
or unfaithful clergymen. In the latter, therefore, the question was
one of clerical, not lay discipline, and there was involved in it a
very important theological principle. The Donatists maintained
that the validity of clerical functions depended upon the character
of the administering clergyman; the Catholic party maintained that
the validity of those functions depended solely upon Christ, and
was quite independent of the character of the officiating clergj'man,
provided he had been duly qualified by the Church for the per-
formance of such functions. Augustine, nearly a century after the
rise of the sect, found it necessary to oppose it, and it was in the
controversy with it that he developed his doctrine of the Church and
the Sacraments. The immediate occasion of the schism was the
election of Caicilianus, who favored the milder principles of church
discipline, to the bishopric of Carthage, in 311. His election was
opposed by the entire rigoristic party in Carthage and throughout
North Africa. It was claimed that the Bishop Felix of Aptunga,
by whom he was ordained, had been a traditor during the persecu-
tion, and that therefore Caecilian's ordination was not valid. As a
con.seijuence the bishops of Numidia, who had not been invited
to assist in the choice and ordination of Ca;cilian, held a synod
in Carthage, and elected a counter-bishop, Majorinus. Thus the
schism was definitely launched. The party called itself for a time
by the name of its first bishop, but in 315 he was succeeded by
Donatus, called the Great, to distinguish him from Donatus, bi.shop
of Casre Nigra;, who had been one of the original leaders of the
movement. From him the sect took the name by which it was
thenceforth known. Doubtless personal jealousies and enmities had
considerable to do with the origin of the schism, but it is quite
inaccurate to ascribe it wholly to such causes. The fundamental
ground lay in the deep-seated difference in principles between the
two parties in the Church, and it was inevitable that that difference
should make itself felt in some such rupture, even had personal
reasons not co-operated to such an extent as they did. Our chief
sources for a knowledge of Donatism are the anti-Donatistic works
of Augustine (see The Nicene and I'ost-Niceuc Fathers, first
series. Vol. IV. p. 369 sq.), together with a number of his epistles,
and Optatus' Df Schismaie Donatistaruin. The literature on
the subject is very extensive. See especially Valesius' essay, De
Schismate Donat., appended to his edition of Eusebius (Reading's
edition, p. 775 sq.) ; Ribbeck, Donatus and Aitgustinus, 1858; the
articles Ctecih'anus and Donatism in the Diet. 0/ Christ. Diog. ;
X. 5-]
CONSTANTINE SUMMONS COUNCILS.
381
" Constantine Augustus to Miltiades,^' bishop
of Rome, and to Marcus.^^ Since many such
communications have been sent to me by Anu-
hnus/'-' the most ilhistrious proconsul of Africa,
in which it is said that Ca^ciHanus,"" bishop of
the city of Carthage, has been accused by some
of his colleagues in Africa, in many matters ; -^
and since it seems to me a very serious thing
that in those provinces which Divine Providence
has freely entrusted to my devotedness, and in
which there is a great population, the multitude
are found following the baser course, and divid-
ing, as it were, into two parties, and the
19 bishops are at variance, — it has seemed
good to me that Crecilianus himself, with
ten of the bishops that appear to accuse him,
and with ten others whom he may consider
necessary for his defense, should sail to Rome,
Neander's Church History, Torrey's translation, II. p. 182 sq.;
Hefele's Cottciliengesch. 2d ed., I. p. 293 sq. ; and Schafi''s Church
History, III. p. 360 sq. Constantine did not voluntarily meddle
in the Donatistic controversy. He was first appealed to by the
Donatists themselves, through the proconsul Anulinus, early in the
year 313 (see Augustine, Epistle 88, for a copy of the letter in which
Anulinus communicates their request to the emperor). In response
to their appeal Constantine (in the present epistle) summoned the
two parties to appear before a Roman synod, which was held in
October, 313. The Donatists were unable to prove their charges,
and the synod gave decision against them. Again, at their own
request, their case was heard at a council held in Gaul the following
year (the synod of Aries; see the next epistle of Constantine quoted
in this chapter). This council also decided against them, and the
Donatists appealed once more to the judgment of the emperor him-
self. He heard their case in Milan in 316, and confirmed the de-
cisions of the councils, and soon afterward issued laws against them,
threatening them with the banishment of their bishops and the con-
fiscation of their property. He soon, however, withdrew his per-
secuting measures, and adopted a policy of toleration. During
subsequent reigns their condition grew worse, and they were often
obliged to undergo severe hardships; but they clung rigidly to their
principles until the invasion of the Vandals in 428, when the entire
North African Church was devastated.
1^ Miltiades (called also Melchiades) was bishop of Rome from
July 2, 310, to Jan. 10 or 11, 314. See Lipsius, Chron. der roni.
Bischofe, p. 257 sq.
18 Marcus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless Valesius'
not improbable conjecture be accepted, that he was at this time a
presbyter of Rome, and is to be identified with the Marcus who was
bishop of Rome for some eight months in 336.
I'J xa.f>Tixi.. The reference, as remarked by Valesius, seems to be
not to epistles of Anulinus, but to the communications of the Dona-
tists forwarded to the emperor by Anulinus. In his epistle to the
emperor, which was written April 15, 313 (see Augustine, Ep. 88),
Anulinus speaks of two communications handed to him by the Do-
natists, which he forwards to the emperor with his own letter. The
former of them, which is no longer extant, bore the title Libellus
ecclesia CatholicrE criniiiuim CiEciliaiii. The other, which is
preserved by Optatus (Du Pin's edition, p. 22, and Routh, Rcl. Sac.
IV. 280) contained the request that the emperor would appoint some
Gallic bishops to hear the case, because the church of that country
had not been subjected to the same temptation as themselves during
the persecution, and could therefore render an impartial decision. It
was in consequence of this request that the Gallic bishops mentioned
below were directed by the emperor to proceed to Rome to join with
Miltiades in the adjudication of the case. Constantine speaks of
receiving many such communications, but no others are preserved
to us.
2° Caecilianus had been arch-deacon of the church of Carthage
under the bishop Mensurius, and had been a diligent supporter of
the latter in his opposition to the fanatical conduct and the extreme
rigor of the stricter party during the persecution. In 311 he became
bishop, and lived until about 345. We know nothing about his life
after the first few years of the conflict. His title to the bishopric
was universally acknowledged outside of North Africa, and by all
there except the Donatists themselves.
21 The chief charge brought against Caecilian was that he had
been ordained by a traditor, Felix of Aptunga, and that his ordina-
tion was therefore invalid. The charge against Felix was carefully
investigated at the Council of Aries, and pronounced quite ground-
less. Many personal charges, such as cruelty to the martyrs in
prison (which had its ground, doubtless, in his condemnation of the
foolish fanaticism which was so common during the persecution in
Africa), tyranny, bloodthirstiness, &c., were brought against Cae-
cilian, but were dismissed in every case as quite groundless.
that there, in the presence of yourselves and of
Retecius " and Maternus "'' and Marinus,'''* your
colleagues, whom I have commanded to hasten
to Rome for this purpose,^ he may be heard, as
you may imderstand to be in accordance
with the most holy law. Hut in order that 20
you may be enabled to have most perfect
knowledge of all these things, I have subjoined
to my letter copies of the documents sent to me
by Anulinus, and have sent them to your above-
mentioned colleagues. When your firmness has
read these, you will consider in what way the
above-mentioned case may be most accurately
investigated and justly decided. For it does
not escape your diligence that I have such rev-
erence for the legitimated'^ Catholic Church that
I do not wish you to leave schism or divis-
ion in any place. May the divinity of the
great God preserve you, most honored sirs, for
many years."
Copy of an epistle in which the empej'o?- 21
com mauds another synod to be held for
the purpose of removing all dissensions among
the bishops.
" Constantine Augustus to Chrestus,-' bishop
of Syracuse. When some began wickedly and
perversely to disagree -** among themselves in
regard to the holy worship and celestial power
and Catholic doctrine,^'-* wishing to put an
end to such disputes among them, I formerly
gave command that certain bishops should be
sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties
^2 Retecius was bishop of Autun in Gaul (see Optatus, I. 22, and
the references given below). An extended account of him, largely
legendary, is given by Gregory of Tours (De gloria Con/. 75, ac-
cording to the Diet, of Christ. Biog.). The dates of his accession
and death are unknown to us. He attended the Council of Aries in
313 (see the list of those present, in Routh, IV. p. 312), and is
spoken of in high terms by Augustine {Contra Jul. I. 7; Opus iiit-
pcrf. cent. yul. I. 55), and also by Jerome, who informs us that he
wrote a commentary on the Song of Songs and a work against No-
vatian (see his de vir. ill. 82, Ep. ad Florentium, and ad Marcel-
lain, Migne, Nos. 5 and 37).
-•^ Maternus was bishop of Cologne, the first one of that see
known to us, but the date of his accession and death are unknown.
He is mentioned by Optatus (ibid.), and was present at the Council
of Aries (Routh, ibid.).
2* Marinus, whose dates are likewise unknown, was bishop of
Aries (see Optatus, ibid.), and was present at the Council in that
city in 314 (see Routh, ibid. p. 313).
-' This Roman Council convened in the house of Fausta, in the
Lateran, on the second day of October, 313, and was attended
by nineteen bishops, — the three from Gaul just mentioned, Milti-
ades himself, and fifteen Italian bishops (see Optatus, ibid.). The
synod resulted in the complete victory of the party of Csecilian, as
remarked above (note 15).
^f" ivOicTfiu).
" The name of Chrestus appears first in the list of those present
at the Council of Aries (see Routh, IV. 312), and in consequence it
has been thought that he presided at the Council, a conclusion
which some have regarded as confirmed by Constantine's own words
in § 24, below. But on the other hand, in the epistle of the synod
addres.sed to Sylvester of Rome, and containing the canons of the
Council, it is distinctly stated that Marinus, bishop of Aries, pre-
sided; and this in itself seems more probable, although the docu-
ment in which the statement is found may not perhaps be genuine
(see, for instance, Ffoulke's article Marinas in the Vict, of Christ.
Biog., which needs, however, to be taken with allowance, for the
case against the genuineness of the extant canons of the Council is
by no means so strong as he implies) . Of Chrestus himself we know
nothing more than can be gathered from this epistle.
-" anoSiiaraa^dai,, 2" t^s acpe<rews t^s KafloAiK^s.
382
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[X.5.
who were contending persistently and inces-
santly with each other, should be summoned from
Africa ; that in their presence, and in the pres-
ence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which
appeared to be causing the disturbance might
be examined and decided with all care.^"
22 But since, as it happens, some, forgetful
both of their own salvation and of the rev-
erence due to the most holy religion, do not
even yet bring hostilities to an end, and are
unwilling to conform to the judgment already
passed, and assert that those who expressed
their opinions and decisions were few, or that
they had been too hasty and precipitate in giv-
ing judgment, before all the things which ought
to have been accurately investigated had been
examined, — on account of all this it has hap-
pened that those very ones who ought to hold
brotherly and harmonious relations toward each
other, are shamefully, or rather abominably,^^
divided among themselves, and give occasion
for ridicule to those men whose souls are aliens
to this most holy religion. Wherefore it has
seemed necessary to me to provide that this
dissension, which ought to have ceased after the
judgment had been already given by their own
v^oluntary agreement, should now, if possible,
be brought to an end by the presence of
23 many. Since, therefore, we have com-
manded a number of bishops from a great
many different places"^ to assemble in the city of
Arles,^ before the kalends of August, we have
thought proper to write to thee also that thou
shouldst secure from the most illustrious La-
tronianus,'"'' corrector of Sicily,'^ a public vehicle,
and that thou shouldst take with thee two
others of the second rank,"" whom thou thyself
"" See the previous epistle.
31 aitrxpws, ^xaWov Oe jU.v<Ttpa)5.
•*- €K &i.aij>6pujv (cat afxvSriTuii' ToTTwi'. Some old accounts give
the number of bishops present at the Council as six hundred, but
this is wild. Baronius gave the number as two hundred, and he
has been followed by many others, but this rests upon a false read-
ing in a passage in Augustine's works. The truth seems to be that
there were not more than thirty-three bishops present, the number
given in the only lists of the members of the synod which we have
(see Routh, ibid., and see also Hefele, Conciliengcscli. I. p. 201).
^ Aries (Latin Ar elate"), a city of Southern France, situated not
far from the mouth of the Rhone. It was at this time one of the
most prominent episcopal sees of Gaul, and was the seat of more
than one important council, of which the present is the first known
to us. The one summoned by Constantine convened, as we may
gather from this passage, on the first of August, 314. We do not
know how long its sessions continued, nor indeed any particulars in
regard to it, though twenty-two canons are extant in an epistle ad-
dressed to Sylvester of Rome, which purport to be the genuine
canons of the Council, and arc commonly so regarded. Their genu-
ineness, however, is by no means universally admitted (cf. e.g. the
article in the Diet, of Christ. Biog. referred to in note 27). If the
canons are genuine, we see that the Council busied itself with many
other matters besides the Donatistic schism, especially with the
Easter question and with various matters of church discipline. See
Hefele, Conciliengcsch. I. p. 201 sq. (2d ed.).
2* According to Valesius the name of Latronianus is found {^teste
Gnalthero) in an ancient Palermo inscription {in tabulis Siciilis,
nu»iero ibd). He is an otherwise unknown personage.
^^ The Greek toO <copp);KTopos is evidently simply a translitera-
tion of the original Latin corrcctoris. Corrector^ in the time of
the emperors, was " the title of a kind of land bailiff, a governor"
(Andrews' Lexicon).
311 tZiv i< ToO SevTepov 0p6i>ov\ i.e. presbyters. Valesius remarks
ad locum that presbyters were commonly called "priests of the
second order," as may be gathered from various authors. He refers
shalt choose, together with three servants who
may serve you on the way, and betake thyself
to the above-mentioned place before the
appointed day ; that by thy firmness, and 24
by the wise unanimity and harmony of the
others present, this dispute, which has disgrace-
fully continued until the present time, in con-
sequence of certain shameful strifes, after all
has been heard which those have to say who are
now at variance with one another, and whom
we have likewise commanded to be present, may
be settled in accordance with the proper faith,
and that brotherly harmony, though it be but
gradually, may be restored. May the Almighty
God preserve thee in health for many years."
CHAPTER VI.i
Copy of an Imperial Episilc in 7cihich Money is
granted to the Churches?
"Constantine Augustus to Ccecilianus,'' 1
bishop of Carthage. Since it is our pleas-
ure that something should be granted in all the
provinces of Africa and Numidia and Mauri-
tania to certain ministers of the legitimate'' and
most holy catholic religion, to defray their ex-
penses, I have written to Ursus,^ the illustrious
finance minister" of Africa, and have directed
him to make provision to pay to thy firm-
ness three thousand folles." Do thou there- 2
among others to Jerome, who says in his Epitaph on the blessed
Paula, "There were present the bishops of Jerusalem and other
cities, and an innumerable company of priests and Levites of the
lower order {in/erioris gradus) "\ and to Gregory Nazianzen
{Carin. iamlie. dt vita sua, p. 6), who says, " the bishops in the
church sat on a higher throne, the presbyters on lower seats on
either side, while the deacons stood by in white garments." Com-
pare also Eusebius' description of the arrangement of the seats in the
church of Tyre (chap. 4, § 67, above), and for other references see
Valesius' note. Possibly the Latin phrase used by Constantine was
similar to that employed by Jerome: secundi gradus.
' Upon the title of this chapter given in the majority of the MSS.,
see above, chap. 5, note i.
- The accompanying epistle furnishes the first instance which we
have of financial support furnished the clergy by the state. From
this time on the old system of voluntary contributions fell more and
more into disuse, and the clergy gained their support from the
income upon the church property, which accumulated rapidly, in
consequence of special grants by the state and voluntary gifts and
legacies by pious Christians, or from imperial bounties, as in the
present case. Chrysostom, however, complains that the clergy in
his time were not as well supported as under the ancient voluntary
system. The accuracy of his statement, however, is open to doubt,
as is the accuracy of all such comparisons between an earlier age
and our own, unless it be based upon exhaustive statistics. Upon
the general subject of the maintenance of the clergy in the early
Church, see Bingham's Antiquities, Bk. V. Compare also Hatch's
Constiiutio)! of the Early Christian Churches, p. 150 sq. Upon
the Montanistic practice of paying their clergy salaries, see above,
Bk. V. chap. 18, note 8, and for .in example of the same thing among
the Theodotians, see Bk. V. chap. 28, § 10.
3 On Ca;cilianus, see above, ch.tp. 5, note 20.
■• ii'9d(rpiov. ^ Ursus is an otherwise unknown personage.
" KaOoKiKoy. Cf. Bk. VIII. chap. 11, note 3.
' <|)dAAei?. We learn from Epiphanius {De pond, et mens., at
the end of the work; Dindorf's ed. IV. p. 33) that there were two
folles, one a small coin, and the other a sum of money of uncertain
value. The latter is evidently referred to here. According to one
computation it was worth 208 denarii. If this were correct, the pres-
ent sum would amount to over ninety thousand dollars; but the
truth is, we can reach no certainty in the matter. For an exhaus-
tive discussion of the subject, see Petavius' essay in Dindorf's edi-
tion of Epiphanius, IV. p. 109 sq.
X. 7.]
GRANTS OF CONSTANTINE TO THE CHURCH.
383
fore, when thou hast received the above
sura of money, command tliat it be distributed
among all those mentioned above, according
3 to the brief ^ sent to thee by Hosius.'-' But
if thou shouldst find that anything is want-
ing for the fulfillment of this purpose of mine in
regard to all of them, thou shalt demand without
hesitation from Heracleides,^" our treasurer,"
whatever thou findest to be necessary. For I
commanded him when he was present that if
thy firmness should ask him for any money, he
should see to it that it be paid without de-
4 lay. And since I have learned that some
men of unsettled mind wish to turn the
people from the most holy and catholic Church
by a certain method of shameful corruption,'^
do thou know that 1 gave command to Anulinus,
the proconsul, and also to Patricius,'^ vicar of the
prefects," when they were present, that they
should give proper attention not only to other
matters but also above all to this, and that they
should not overlook such a thing when
5 it happened. Wherefore if thou shouldst
see any such men continuing in this mad-
ness, do thou without delay go to the above-
mentioned judges and report the matter to
them ; that they may correct them as I com-
manded them when they were present.'^ The
divinity of the great God preserve thee for
many years."
8 ^peoiJi.'oi'; probably for the Latin brcviariiim.
9 Doubtless to be identified with the famous Hosius, bishop of
Cordova in Spain, who was for many years Constantine's most in-
fluential adviser and took a prominent part in all the great contro-
versies of the first half of the fourth century, and who died shortly
before 360, when he was upwards of a hundred years old. Upon
his life, see especially the exhaustive article by Morse, in the Diet,
of Christ. Biog.
^^ Heracleides is, so far as I am aware, mentioned only here.
12 This would seem to be a reference to the Donatists. If it is,
it leads us to suppose that Constantine had heard about the troubles
in Carthage before he received the communication from Anulinus
referred to in the previous chapter; for we can hardly suppose that
pending the trial of Caecilian Constantine would show him such sig-
nal marks of favor, which would lay him at once open to the charge
of partiality, and would be practically a prejudgment of the case.
On the other hand, he could not have referred to the Donatists in
this way after the trial of the case, for his words imply that he is
referring, not to an already well-established and well-known party,
but simply to individuals whom he has recently learned to be making
some kind of trouble in the church. These considerations seem to
me to lead to the conclusion that this epistle preceded the one to
Miltiades quoted in the previous chapter, and also the one from
Anidinus to Constantine (see notes 16 and 19 on that chapter). If
this be so, it must have been written as early as April, 313, and
therefore soon after the epistle to Anulinus quoted in the previous
chapter, § 15 sq. We might then be led to suppose that it was in
consequence of this grant made by Constantine solely to CEecilian
and the clergy under him that the Donatists decided to appeal to
the emperor, his treatment of all who were opposed to Cascilian
showing them that he had heard reports of them by no means to
their advantage, and thus impelling them to try and set themselves
right in his eyes and in the eyes of the world by a public investiga-
tion of their cause. There are difficulties connected with the exact
order of events at this point which beset any theory we may adopt,
but the one just stated seems to me most in harmony with our
sources and with the nature of the case. For a full, though not
altogether satisfactory, discussion of the matter, which I cannot
dwell upon here, see Walch's Ketzergeschichte, IV. p. 116 sq.
1^ This Patricius is known to us, so far as I am aware, from this
passage only.
1'' Tu> ouiKapiw Ttui' i-n apxiiiv , which doubtless represents the
Latin Vicarius Pnefectoritm, the vicar or deputy of the prefects.
See Valesius' note ad locum and the note of Heinichen (Vol. III.
p. 463), with the additional references given by him.
i-" This is the first instance we have of an effort on Constantine's
CHAFl^ER VII.
T/ic Excjnption of the Clergy.
Copy of an epistle in which the cinperor 1
coDiniands that the ruh^rs of t]ie chi/rches
be exempted from all political duties}
" Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anuli-
nus. Since it appears from many circumstances
that when that religion is despised, in which
is preserved the chief reverence for the most
holy celestial Power, great dangers are brought
upon public affairs ; but that when legally
adopted and observed ■' it affords the most sig-
nal prosperity to the Roman name and re-
markable felicity to all the affairs of men, through
the divine beneficence, — it has seemed good to
me, most esteemed Anulinus, that those men
who give their services with due sanctity and
with constant observance of this law, to the wor-
ship of the divine religion, should receive
recompense for their labors. Wherefore it 2
is my will that those within the province
entrusted to thee,^ in the catholic Church, over
which Ccecilianus presides,"* who give their ser-
vices to this holy religion, and who are com-
monly called clergymen, be entirely exempted
from all public duties, that they may not by any
error or sacrilegious negligence be drawn away
from the service due to the Deity, but m^ay
devote themselves without any hindrance to
their own law. For it seems that when they
show greatest reverence to the Deity, the great-
est benefits accrue to the state. Farewell,
our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus."
part to suppress schismatics. In 316 he enacted a stringent law
against the Donatists (see the previous chapter, note 16), which,
however, he withdrew within a few years, finding the policy of
repression an unwise one. The same was done later in connec-
tion with the Arians, whom he at first endeavored to suppress by
force, but afterward tolerated. His successors were in the main far
less tolerant than he was, and heretics and schismatics were fre-
quently treated with great harshness during the fourth and following
centuries.
1 Municipal offices and magistracies were a great burden under
the later Roman empire. They entailed heavy expenses for those
who filled them, and consequently, unless a man's wealth was large,
and his desire for distinction very great, he was glad to be exempted,
if possible, from the necessity of supporting such expensive honors,
which he was not at liberty to refuse. The same was true of almost
all the offices, municipal and provincial offices, high and low. Dis-
charging the duties of an office was in fact practically paying a
heavy tax to government, and of course the fewer there were that
were compelled to pay this tax, the greater the burden upon the
few. As a consequence, the exemption of any class of persons
always aroused opposition from those who were not exempted. In
granting this immunity to the clergy, however, Constantine was
granting them only what had long been enjoyed by the heathen
priesthood, and also by some of the learned professions. The privi-
lege bestowed here upon the African clergy was afterward extended
to those of other provinces, as we learn from the Theodosian Code,
16. 2. 2 (a.d. 319). The direct result of the exemption was that
many persons of means secured admission to the ranks of the clergy,
in order to escape the burden of office-holding; and this practice
increased so rapidly that within a few years the emperor was obliged
to enact various laws restricting the privilege. See Hatch's Coti-
stitutiou of the Early Christ. Churches, p. 144 sq.
-^ eyOiatJ-iti? avaXrji^dilaai' kol (/>vAaTT0)U.ei'7ji'.
3 i.e. the proconsular province of Africa (see above, chap. 5,
§18).
■* i.e. the Church of the entire province; for the bishop of
Carthage was the metropolitan of the province, and indeed was
384
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[X. 8.
CHAPTER VIII.
TJie Subsequent Wickedness of Licinius, and his
Death.
1 Such blessings did divine and heavenly
grace confer upon us through the appear-
ance of our Saviour, and such was the abun-
dance of benefits which prevailed among all
men in consequence of the peace which we
enjoyed. And thus were our affairs crowned
2 with rejoicings and festivities. But malig-
nant envy, and the demon who loves that
which is evil, were not able to bear the sight of
these things ; and moreover the events that
befell the tyrants whom we have already men-
tioned were not sufficient to bring Licinius
3 to sound reason. For the latter, although
his government was prosperous and he was
honored with the second rank after the great
Emperor Constantine, and was connected with
him by the closest ties of marriage, abandoned
the imitation of good deeds, and emulated the
wickedness of the impious tyrants whose end
he had seen with his own eyes, and chose rather
to follow their principles than to continue in
friendly relations with him who was better than
they. Being envious of the common benefactor,
he waged an impious and most terrible war
against him, paying regard neither to laws of
nature, nor treaties, nor blood, and giving
4 no thought to covenants.^ For Constantine,
like an all-gracious emperor, giving him
the leading bishop of North Africa, and thus recognized as in 'some
sense at the head of the church of that entire section of country.
' To speak of Licinius as alone responsible for the civil war
between himself and Constantine, which ended in his own downfall,
is quite unjustifiable; indeed, this entire chapter is a painful example
of the way in which prejudice distorts facts. The positions of the
two emperors was such that a final struggle between them for the
sole supremacy was inevitable. Already, in 314, a war broke out,
which seems to have resulted from Licinius' refusal to deliver up
a relative of his own, who had in some way been concerned in a
conspiracy against Constantine. The occasion of the war is not
perfectly plain, but it is certain that Constantine, not Licinius, was
the aggressor. Constantine came off victorious, but was not able to
overthrow his rival, and a treaty was concluded by which Illyricum,
one of Licinius' most important provinces, was ceded to Constantine.
The two emperors remained at peace, each waiting for a time when
he could with advantage attack the other, until 323, when a second
and greater war broke out, to which Eusebius, who omits all refer-
ence to the former, refers in these two chapters. The immediate
occasion of this warj as of the former, is obscure, but it was certainly
not due to Constantme's pity for the oppressed Christian subjects of
Licinius, and his pious desire to avenge their sufferings, as Eusebius,
who in his Vita Const. IL 3, in contradiction to this present pas-
sage, claims for his prince the honor of beginning the war without
any other provocation, would have us believe. Doubtless the fact
that IJcinius was persecuting his Christian subjects had much to
do with the outbreak of the war; for Constantine saw clearly that
Licinius had weakened his hold upon his subjects by his conduct,
and that therefore a good time had arrived to strike the decisive
blow. A pretext — for of course Constantine could not go to war
without some more material and plausible pretext than sympathy
with oppressed Christian brethren — was furnished by some sort
of a misunderstanding in regard to the respective rights of the two
sovereigns in the border territory along the Danube frontier, and
the war began by Constantine taking the initiative, and invading his
rival's territory. Two battles were fought, — one at Adrianople in
July, and the other at Chrysopolis in September, 323, — in both of
which Constantine was victorious, and the latter of which resulted
in the surrender of Licinius, and the accession of Constantine to the
supreme sovereignty of both East and West. Cf. Gibljon, Harper's
ed., I. p. 490 sq., and Burckhardt's Zcit Constantins, 2d ed.,
p. 3«8 sq. '* See below, p. 400.
evidences of true favor, did not refuse alliance
with him, and did not refuse him the illustrious
marriage with his sister, but honored him by
making him a partaker of the ancestral nobility
and the ancient imperial blood,^'' and granted
him the right of sharing in the dominion over
all as a brother-in-law and co-regent, conferring
upon him the government and administration of
no less a portion of the Roman provinces
than he himself possessed.^ But Licinius, 5
on the contrary, pursued a course directly
opposite to this ; forming daily all kinds of plots
against his superior, and devising all sorts of
mischief, that he might repay his benefactor
with evils. At first he attempted to conceal his
preparations, and pretended to be a friend, and
practiced frequently fraud and deceit, in the
hope that he might easily accomplish the
desired end.^ But God was the friend, pro- 6
tector, and guardian of Constantine, and
bringing the plots which had been formed in
secrecy and darkness to the light, he foiled them.
So much virtue does the great armor of piety
possess for the warding off of enemies and for
the preservation of our own safety. Protected
by this, our most divinely favored emperor es-
caped the multitudinous plots of the abom-
inable man. But when Licinius perceived 7
that his secret preparations by no means
progressed according to his mind, — for God
revealed every plot and wickedness to the God-
favored emperor, — being no longer able to con-
ceal himself, he undertook an open war.^
And at the same time that he determined 8
to wage war with Constantine, he also
proceeded to join battle with the God of the
universe, whom he knew that Constantine wor-
shiped, and began, gently for a time and quietly,
to attack his pious subjects, who had never done
his government any harm.^ This he did vmder
2 A more flagrant misrepresentation of facts could hardly be
imagined. Licinius received his appointment directly from Galerius
and owed nothing whatever to Constantine ; in fact, was an Augustus
before the latter was, and held his half of the empire quite indepen-
dently of the latter, and indeed by a far clearer title than Constantine
held his. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, notes 18 and 21.
2 There is no reason to suppose that Licinius was any more
guilty than Constantine in these respects.
■i This is in direct contradiction to Eusebius' own statement in
his Vita Const. II. 3 (see above, note i), and is almost certainly
incorrect.
^ Licinius, as Gorres has shown in his able essay Die Licinian-
ischc Christeiiverfolsung, p. 5 sq., did not begin to persecute the
Christians until the year 319 (the persecution was formerly com-
monly supposed to have begun some threit or four years earlier).
The causes of his change of policy in this matter it is impossible to
state with certainty, but the exceedingly foolish step seems to have
been chiefly due to his growing hatred and suspicion of the Chris-
tians as the friends of Constantine. Though he h.ad not hitherto
been hostile to them, he had yet never taken any pains to win their
friendship and to secure their enthusiastic support as Constantine
had, and as a consequence they naturally looked with envy upon
their brethren in the west, who were enjoying such signal marks of
imperial favor. Licinius could not but be conscious of this; and as
the relations between himself and Constantine became more and
more strained, it was not unnatural for him to acquire a peculiar
enmity toward them, and finally to suspect them of a conspiracy in
favor of his rival. Whether he h.ad any grounds for such a suspicion
we do not know, but at .any rate he began to show his changed atti-
tude in 319 by clearing his palace of Christians (see § 10). No
more foolish step can be imagined than the opening of a persecution
X. 8.]
LICINIUS PERSECUTES THE CHRISTIANS.
3S5
the compulsion of his innate wickedness
9 which drove him into terrible blindness. He
did not therefore keep before his eyes the
memory of those who had persecuted the Chris-
tians before him, nor of those whose destroyer
and executioner he had been appointed, on
account of the impieties which they had com-
mitted. But departing from sound reason, being
seized, in a word, with insanity, he determined
to war against God himself as the ally of Con-
stantine, instead of against the one who was
10 assisted by him. And in the first place, he
drove from his house every Christian, thus
depriving himself, wretched man, of the prayers
which they offered to God in his behalf, which
they are accustomed, according to the teaching
of their fathers, to offer for all men. Then he
commanded that the soldiers in the cities should
be cashiered and stripped of their rank unless
they chose to sacrifice to the demons. And yet
these were small matters when compared
11 with the greater things that followed. Why
is it necessary to relate minutely and in
detail all that was done by the hater of God,
and to recount how this most lawless man in-
vented unlawful laws ? ^ He passed an ordinance
that no one should exercise humanity toward the
sufferers in prison by giving them food, and that
none should show mercy to those that were per-
ishing of hunger in bonds ; that no one should
in any way be kind, or do any good act, even
though moved by Nature herself to sympathize
with one's neighbors. And this was indeed an
openly shameful and most cruel law, calculated
to expel all natural kindliness. And in addition
to this it was also decreed, as a punishment, that
those who showed compassion should suffer the
same things with those whom they compassion-
ated ; and that those who kindly ministered to
at this critical juncture. Just at a time when he needed the most
loyal support of all his subjects, he wantonly alienated the affections
of a large and influential portion of them, and in the very act gave
them good reason to become devoted adherents of his enemy. The
persecution of Licinius, as Gbrres has clearly shown {ibid. p. 29 sq.)
was limited in its extent and mild in its character. It began, as
Eusebius informs us, with the expulsion of Christians from the pal-
ace, but even here it was not universal; at least, Eusebius of Nico-
media and other prominent clergymen still remained Licinius' friends,
and were treated as such by him. In fact, he evidently punished only
those whom he thought to be his enemies and to be interested in the
success of Constantine, if not directly conspiring in his behalf. No
general edicts of persecution were issued by him, and the sufferings
of the Christians seem to have been confined almost wholly to occa-
sional loss of propertj^ or banishment, or, still less frequently, im-
prisonment. A few bishops appear to have been put to death, but
there is no reason to suppose that they suffered at the command of
Licinius himself. Of course, when it was known that he was hos-
tile to the Christians, fanatical heathen officials might venture, oc-
casionally at least, to violate the existing laws and bring hated
bishops 10 death on one prete.xt or another. But such cases were
certainly rare, and there seem to have been no instances of execu-
tion on the simple ground of Christianity, as indeed there could not
be while the Edict of Milan remained unrepealed. Eusebius' state-
ment that Licinius was about to proceed to severer measures, when
the war with Constantine broke out and put a stop to his plans, is
very likely true; but otherwise his report is rather highly colored,
as many other sources fully warrant us in saying. For a careful and
very satisfactory discussion of this whole subject, see Gorres, i/n'J.
p. 32 sq.
t" Note the play on the word fdnos. i-d/uov? ai-oyaou; 6 Trai'a^o/iui-
TaTO?.
the suffering should be thrown into bonds and
into prison, and should endure the same punish-
ment with the sufferers. Such were the decrees
of Licinius.
Why should we recount his innovations 12
in regard to marriage or in regard to the
dying — innovations by which lie ventured to
annul the ancient laws of the Romans which
had been well and wisely formed, and to intro-
duce certain barbarous and cruel laws, which
were truly unlawful and lawless ? " He invented,
to the detriment of the provinces which were
subject to him, innumerable prosecutions,* and
all sorts of methods of extorting gold and silver,
new measurements of land'* and injurious exac-
tions from men in the country, who were
no longer living, but long since dead. Why 13
is it necessary to speak at length of the
banishments which, in addition to these things,
this enemy of mankind inflicted upon those
who had done no wrong, the expatriations of
men of noble birth and high reputation whose
young wives he snatched from them and con-
signed to certain baser fellows of his own, to be
shamefully abused by them, and the many mar-
ried women and virgins upon whom he gratified
his passions, although he was in advanced age '"
— why, I say, is it necessary to speak at length
of these things, when the excessive wickedness
of his last deeds makes the first appear
small and of no account? For, finally, he 14
reached such a pitch of madness that he
attacked the bishops, supposing that they — as
servants of the God over all — would be hos-
tile to his measures. He did not yet proceed
against them openly, on account of his fear of
his superior, but as before, secretly and craftily,
employing the treachery of the governors for
the destruction of the most distinguished of
them. And the manner of their murder was
strange, and such as had never before been
heard of. The deeds which he performed 15
' Another play upon the same word: I'd/u.ous, a.v6ixov<; io<; aAi;-
flo)? (cai -napavofxov;.
8 eiTLarKr^\f/ei^. The same word is used in connection with Maxi-
minus in Bk. VIII. chap. 14, § 10, above. Valesius cites passages
from Aurelius Victor, and Libanius, in which it is said that Licinius
was very kindly disposed toward the rural population of his re;dm,
and that the cities flourished greatly under him. Moreover, Zosi-
mus gives just such an account of Constantine as Eusebius gives of
Licinius. Allowance must undoubtedly be made on the one side for
Eusebius' prejudice against Licinius, as on the other for Zosimus'
well-known hatred of Constantine. Doubtless both accounts aie
greatly exaggerated, though they probably contain considerable
truth, for there were few Roman emperors that did not practice
severe exactions upon their subjects, at times at least, if not continu-
ally, and it is always easy in a case of this kind to notice the d.nrk
and to overlook the bright features of a reign. Licinius was cer-
tainly a cruel man in many respects, and one hardly cares to enter
the lists in his defense, but it should be observed that, until he be-
came the enemy of Constantine and the persecutor of the Christians,
Eusebius uniformly spoke of him in the highest terms. Compare
Stroth's note mi locum (quoted also by Closs).
■' i.e. for the purpose of making new assessrnents. which is always
apt to be looked upon as an oppressive act, whether unjust or not.
'" e<T\iT6yt]oi'><:. Valesius remarks that, according to the epit-
omist of Victor, Licinius died in the sixtieth year of his age, so that
at the time of which Eusebius was speaking he was little more than
fifty years of age.
VOL. I.
c c
386
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[X. 8.
at Amaseia" and in the other cities of Pon-
tus surpassed every excess of cruehy. Some of
the churches of God were again razed to the
ground, others were closed, so that none of
those accustomed to frequent them could enter
them and render the worship due to God.
16 For his evil conscience led him to suppose
that prayers were not offered in his behalf;
but he was persuaded that we did everything in
the interest of the God-beloved emperor, and
that we supplicated God for him.^- Therefore
he hastened to turn his fury against us.
17 And then those among the governors who
wished to flatter him, perceiving that in
doing such things they pleased the impious
tyrant,^^ made some of the bishops suffer the
penalties customarily inflicted upon criminals,
and led away and without any pretext punished
like murderers those who had done no wrong.
Some now endured a new form of death : hav-
ing their bodies cut into many pieces with the
sword, and after this savage and most horrible
spectacle, being thrown into the depths of
18 the sea as food for fishes. Thereupon the
worshipers of God again fled, and fields and
deserts, forests and mountains, again received
the servants of Christ. And when the impious
tyrant had thus met with success in these meas-
ures, he finally planned to renew the per-
19 secution against all. And he would have
succeeded in his design, and there would
have been nothing to hinder him in the work,
had not God, the defender of the lives of his
own people, most quickly anticipated that which
was about to happen, and caused a great light
to shine forth as in the midst of a dark and
gloomy night, and raised up a deliverer for all,
leading into those regions with a lofty arm, his
servant, Constantine.
CHAPTER IX.
Tlie Victory of Constantine, and the Blessings
which under him accrued to the Subjects of
the Roman Empire.
1 To him, therefore, God granted, from
heaven above, the deserved fruit of piety,
the trophies of victory over the impious, and
he cast the guilty one with all his counselors
and friends prostrate at the feet of Con-
2 stantine. For when Licinius carried his
madness to the last extreme, the emperor,
the friend of God, thinking that he ought no
longer to be tolerated, acting upon the basis of
sound judgment, and mingling the firm princi-
" Amascia, or Amasia, as it is more commonly called, was an
important city of Pontus, situated on the river Iris.
" Eusebius makes it clear enough in this sentence that Licinius
suspected a treasonable conspiracy on the part of the Christians.
See above, note i.
■' Sec ibid.
pies of justice with humanity, gladly determined
to come to the protection of those who were
oppressed by the tyrant, and undertook, by put-
ting a few destroyers out of the way, to save
the greater part of the human race.^ For 3
when he had formerly exercised humanity
alone and had shown mercy to him who was not
worthy of sympathy, nothing was accomplished ;
for Licinius did not renounce his wickedness,
but rather increased his fury against the peoples
that were subject to him, and there was left to
the afflicted no hope of salvation, oppressed
as they were by a savage beast. Wherefore, 4
the protector of the virtuous, mingling hatred
for evil with love for good, went forth with his
son Crispus, a most beneficent prince,- and ex-
tended a saving right hand to all that were per-
ishing. Both of them, father and son, under
the protection, as it were, of God, the universal
King, with the Son of God, the Saviour of
all, as their leader and ally, drew up their forces
on all sides against the enemies of the Deity and
won an easy victory ; ^ God having prospered
them in the battle in all respects according
to their wish. Thus, suddenly, and sooner 5
than can be told, those who yesterday and
the day before breathed death and threatening
were no more, and not even their names were
remembered, but their inscriptions and their
honors suffered the merited disgrace. And the
things which Licinius with his own eyes had
seen come upon the former impious tyrants he
himself likewise suffered, because he did not
receive instruction nor learn wisdom from the
chastisements of his neighbors, but followed the
same path of impiety which they had trod, and
was justly hurled over the same precipice.
Thus he lay prostrate. 6
But Constantine, the mightiest victor,
adorned with every virtue of piety, together with
his son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince,
and in all respects like his father, recovered the
East which belonged to them ;* and they formed
one united Roman empire as of old, bringing
under their peaceful sway the whole world from
the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter,
both north and south, even to the extremities
' Eusebius speaks in the same way of the origin of the war in
his Vita Const. II. 3. Cf. the previous chapter, note i.
2 KpttrTTOi BacrtAet i^iAai'^pajTroTaToj. Crispus, the oldest son of
Constantine, by his first wife Mincrvina, was born about the begin-
ning of the fourth century, made Ca;sar in 317, and put to death
by Constantine in 326 on suspicion, whether justified or not we do
not know, of conspiracy and treason. Our sources agree in pro-
nouncing him a young man of most excellent character and marked
ability; and indeed he proved his valor and military talents in the
west m a campaign against the Franks, and also in the present war
with Licinius, in which he won a great naval battle, and thus con-
tributed materially to his father's victory. His execution is the
darkest blot on the memory of Constantine, .and however it may be
palliated can never, as it seems, be excused. Eusebius prudently
omits all reference to it in bis Vita Const.
^ The final battle was fought in September, 323. See the pre-
vious chapter, note 4.
* i^v oiKeiav toJai' a7reAa^|3a;'oi>. Constantine's sole right to the
East was the right of conquest.
X. 9-]
FINAL PEACE AND PROSPERITY.
387
7 of the declining day. All fear therefore
of those who had formerly afflicted them
was taken away from men, and they cele-
brated splendid and festive days. Everything
was filled with light, and those who before were
downcast beheld each other with smiling faces
and beaming eyes. With dances and hymns,
in city and country, they glorified first of all
God the universal King, because they had been
thus taught, and then the pious emperor
8 with his God-beloved children. There was
oblivion of past evils and forgetfulness of
every deed of impiety ; there was enjoyment of
present benefits and expectation of those yet to
come. Edicts full of clemency and laws con-
taining tokens of benevolence and true piety
were issued in every place by the victorious
emperor.* Thus after all tyranny had been 9
purged away, the empire which belonged to
them was preserved firni and without a rival for
Constantine and his sons alone." And having
obliterated the godlcssness of their predecessors,
recognizing the benefits conferred u])on them
by God, they exhibited their love of virtue and
their love of God, and their piety and gratitude
to the Deity, by the deeds which they performed
in the sight of all men.
" Some of these laws of Constantine have been preserved by
Eusebius in his I'ita Const. Bk. II.
" It is clear from this statement, a? well as from the references to
Crispus in the previous paragraphs, that the History was completed
before his execution. See above, p. 45.
THE END, WITH GOD'S HELP, OF THE TENTH BOOK OF THE CHURCH
HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI.
CC 2
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AND TABLES.
On Bk. III. chap, 3, § 5 (note 17, continued).
Since this note was in type Dr. Gardiner's admirable and exhaustive essay on the authorship
of the Epistle to the Hebrews (in the Nicenc and Post-Niccne Fathers, First Series, Vol. XIV. ]).
341 sq.) has come to hand, and I have been much pleased to see that the theory that Barnabas
wrote the epistle is accepted and defended with vigor.
On Bk. III. chap. 2)^% d (note 22, continued).
Upon the last chapter of Romans and its relation to the remainder of the epistle, see espe-
cially Farrar's Life a?id Work of S(. Paul, p. 450 sq., Weiss' Einleitiing in das N. T. p. 245 sq.,
Pfleiderer's Urchristenthum, p. 145, Renan's Saint Paul, p. 461 sq. (maintaining that an editor
has combined four copies of the one encyclical letter of Paul, addressed severally to as many
different churches), Lightfoot's Commentary on Phi/ippians, p. 172 sq., and Schaff, Ch. History,
I. p. 765.
On Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17 (note 18, continued).
In three places in the Church History (Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17, chap. 25, § 2, and chap. 39,
§ 16) John's "former" epistle is referred to, as if he had written only two. In the last passage
the use of irpoTepa instead of irpistTq might be explained as Westcott suggests ( Canon of the New
Testafne?it, p. 77, note 2), by supposing Eusebius to be reproducing the words of Papias ; but in
the other passages this explanation will not do, for the words are certainly Eusebius' own. In
the Muratorian Canon only two epistles of John are mentioned, and in Iren?eus the second epistle
is quoted as if it were the first (see Westcott, il>id. p. 384, note i). These facts lead Westcott
to ask : " Is it possible that the second epistle was looked upon as an appendix to the first? and
may we thus explain the references to tivo epistles of John?" He continues : "The first epistle,
as is well known, was called ad Parthos by Augustine and some other Latin authorities ; and the
same title Trpo? IXd/j^ovs is given to the second epistle in one Greek manuscript (62 Scholz). The
Latin translation of Clement's Outlines (IV. 66) says : Secunda Johanuis cpistola qucc ad 7nrgines
{irapdivovi) scripta simplissima est. Jerome, it may be added, quotes names from the third
epistle as from the second {De noni. Hel>r.)y On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 8, § 7, Euse-
bius speaks of the "first" {irpuiTrj) epistle of John, and in Bk. HI. chap. 25, § 3, he expressly
mentions a second and third epistle of John. It is evident, therefore, that whatever the use of
■nporipa instead of irpwrrj in connection with John's first epistle may mean as used by others, it
does not indicate a knowledge of only a first and second as used by him. It is by no means
impossible, however, that Westcott's suggestion may be correct, and that the first and second
epistles were sometimes looked upon as but one, and it is possible that such use of them by some
of his predecessors may account for Eusebius' employment of the word -n-poTepa in three separate
passages.
On Bk. III. chap, 25, § 4 (note 18, continued).
The words •^ cfapoixevr} BapvdfSa ima-ToX-q have been commonly translated "the so-called Epistle
of Barnabas," or " the l^pistlc ascribed to Barnabas," implying a doubt in Eusebius' mind as to
the authenticity of the work. This translation, however, is, in my opinion, quite unwarranted.
There are passages in Eusebius where the word ^ipopxa used in connection with writings cannot
by any possibility be made to bear this meaning ; cases in which it can be interpreted only
"to be extant" or "in circulation." Compare, for instance, Bk. II. chap. 15, § i, MapKov ov
TO emyyc'Atoj/ (ftiperaL ; II. 18. 6, fiovo^LfiXa avrov <f>€pcTat ; III. 9. 4; III. 16; III. 25. 3, rj Aeyo-
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES. 389
fiiv-q 'luKwySow <f)ipeTaL ; III. 37. 4 ; HI. 39- I ; IV. 3. I, eiVcTt Se ^cperai Trapa TrXetb-TOis ; IV. 14.9,
iv Trj BrjXwdeLcnj Trpb<; ^iXnnr-qa-LOVS avTOv ypa<j>rj (jtepofiivr) eis Btvpo. Compare also IV. 15. I ; IV.
23. 4, 9, 12/ IV. 24. i; IV. 28; V. 5. 6; 19. 3; 23. 2 ; 24. 10; VI. 15. i; VI. 20, &c.
These passages, and many others which are cited by Heinichen (Vol. III. p. 91), prove that the
word is frequently used in the sense of " extant " or " in circulation." But in spite of these
numerous examples, Heinichen maintains that the word is also used by Eusebius in another and
quite different sense ; namely, " so-called " or " ascribed to," thus equivalent to Xcyop-ivrj. A care-
ful examination, however, of all the passages cited by him in illustration of this second meaning
will show that in them too the word may be interpreted in the same way as in those already
referred to ; in fact, that in many of them that is in itself the more natural interpretation. The
passages to which we refer are Bk. III. chap. 25, §§ 2, 3, and 4 ; III. 3. i, t^v 81 <fi€pofx.evr]v avrov
Sevrepav ; III. 39. 6 (where I ought to have translated " is extant under the name of John "). To
draw a distinction between the meaning of the word as used in these and in the other passages
is quite arbitrary, and therefore unwarranted. The sense in which, as we have found, Eusebius
so commonly employs the word attaches also to the Latin word fertur in the Muratorian Canon,
I have not endeavored to trace carefully the use of the word in other writers ; but while many
instances occur in which it is certainly used in this sense, others in which either interpretation is
allowable, I have not yet found one in which this meaning is ruled out by the nature of the case
or by the context. In view of these facts I believe we should be careful to draw a sharp distinc-
tion between Xeyop^evrj or KaXou/xeVr/ and 4>^pop.ivr] when used in connection with written works.
A considerable portion of my translation was in type before I had observed this distinction
between the two words, which is commonly quite overlooked, and as a consequence in a few
cases my rendering of the word <^epo/xeVr/ is inaccurate. All such cases I have endeavored to call
attention to in these supplementary notes.
On Bk. III. chap. 28, § i.
For /A<f Disputatio7i which is ascribed to him, read his extant Disputation.
On Bk. III. chap. 32, § 6 (note 14^).
The Greek reads ttoio-t;? iKKXrja-Las (without the article), and so, two lines below, ivirda-r] ckkXt/-
ata. All the translators (with the exception of Pratten in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII.,
who reads, " the churches ") render " the whole church," as if reading ttSs with the article. We
have not, it is true, enough of Hegesippus' writings to be able to ascertain positively his use of
ttSs, and it is possible that he carelessly employed it indifferently with or without the article to
signify the definite "all" or "the whole." In the absence of positive testimony, however, that
he failed to draw the proper distinction between its use with and its use without the article, and
in view of the fact that Eusebius himself (as well as other early Fathers so far as I am able to
recall) is very consistent in making the distinction, I have not felt at liberty in my translation
to depart from a strict grammatical interpretation of the phrases in question. Moreover, upon
second thought, it seems quite as possible that Hegesippus meant to say " every " not " all " ;
for he can hardly have supposed these relatives of the Lord to have presided literally over the
whole Church, while he might very well say that they presided each over the church in the city in
which he lived, which is all that the words necessarily imply. The phrase just below, " in every
church/' is perhaps as natural as " in the whole church."
On Bk. III. chap. 36, § 13.
For the Epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him, read his extant Epistle to the
Philippians.
On Bk. III. chap. 39, § i (note i, continued).
Since the above note was in type Resch's important work on the Agrapha (von Gebhardt and
Harnack's Texte und Untcrsuchuiigen, Bd. V. Heft 4) has come to hand. On p. 27 sq. he dis-
cusses at considerable length the sources of the Synoptic Gospels. He accepts the theory which
is most widely adopted by New-Testament critics, that the synoptic tradition as contained in our
Synoptic Gospels rests upon an original Gospel of Mark (nearly if not quite identical with our
present Gospel of Mark) and a pre-canonical Hebrew Gospel. In agreement with such critics
he draws a sharp distinction between this original Hebrew Gospel and our canonical Greek
Matthew, while at the same time recognizing that the latter reproduces that original more fully
390 THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
than either of the other Gospels does. This original Hebrew he then identifies with the Xdyia
referred to by Papias as composed by Matthew in the Hebrew tongue (see Bk. HI. chap. 39,
§ 16) ; that is, with the traditional Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (see ibid. chap. 24, note 5). The
arguments which he urges in support of this position are very strong. Handmann regards the
Gospel according to the Hebrews as the second original source of the synoptic tradition, along-
side of the Ur- Marcus, and even suggests its identification with the Aoyta of Papias, and yet
denies its identity with the Hebrew Matthew. On the other hand, Resch regards the Hebrew
Matthew, which he identifies with the Adyta of Papias, as the second original source of the synop-
tic tradition, alongside of Mark or the Ur-Marcus, and yet, like Handmann, though on entirely
different grounds, denies the identity of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with the Hebrew
Matthew. Their positions certainly tend to confirm my suggestion that the Hebrew Matthew
and the Gospel according to the Hebrews were originally identical (see above, Bk. HI. chap. 27,
note 8).
On Bk. HI. chap. 39, § 6.
For ascribed by name to John, read extant under the name of John.
On Bk. in. chap. 39, § 16.
For from the first epistle of John and from that of Peter likeiuise, read from the former
epistle of John and from the epistle of Peter likciuise. See p. 388.
On Bk. IV. chap. 10.
For the Pious, read Pius.
On Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2.
For the Pious, read Pius.
On Bk. V. Introd. § i (note 3, continued). The Successors of Antoninus Pius.
Antoninus Pius was succeeded in 161 by his adopted sons, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
Verus and Lucius Ceionius yElius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus. Upon his accession to
the throne the former transferred his name Verus to the latter, who was thenceforth called
Lucius Aurelius Verus. In his Chronicle Eusebius keeps these two princes distinct, but in
his History he falls into sad confusion in regard to them, and this confusion has drawn upon
him the severe censure of all his critics. He knew of course, as every one did, that Antoninus
Pius had two successors. In Bk. IV. chap. 14, § 10, he states this directly, and gives
the names of the successors as " Marcus Aurelius Verus, who was also called Antoninus," and
" Lucius." From that point on he calls the former of these princes simply Antoninus Verus,
Antoninus, or Verus, dropping entirely the name Marcus Aurelius. In Bk. IV. chap. 1 8, § 2, he
speaks of the emperor " whose times we are now recording," that is, the successor of Antoninus
Pius, and calls him Antoninus Verus. In Bk. V. Introd. § i he refers to the same emperor as
Antoninus Verus, and in Bk. V. chap. 4, § 3, and chap. 9, he calls him simply Antoninus, while
in Bk. IV. chap. 13, § 8, he speaks of him as the " Emperor Verus." The death of this Emperor
Antoninus is mentioned in Bk. V. chap. 9, and it is there said that he reigned nineteen years
and was then succeeded by Commodus. It is evident that in all these passages he is referring
to the emperor whom we know as Marcus Aurelius, but to whom he gives that name only once,
when he records his accession to the empire. On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 5, § i, Euse-
bius speaks of Marcus Aurelius Csesar and expressly distinguishes him from the Emperor
Antoninus, to whom he has referred at the close of the previous chapter, and makes him the
brother of that emperor. Again, in the same chapter, § 6, he calls this Marcus Aurelius Csesar,
just referred to, the " Emperor Marcus," still evidently distinguishing him from the Emperor
Antoninus. In this chapter, therefore, he thinks of Marcus Aurelius as the younger of the two
sons left by yVntoninus Pius; that is, he identifies him with the one whom we call Lucius Verus,
and whom he himself calls Lucius in Bk. IV. chap. 14, § 10. Eusebius thus commits a palpable
error. How are we to explain it?
The explanation seems to me to lie in the circumstance that Eusebius attempted to
reconcile the tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor with the fact known to
him as a historian, that the emperor who succeeded Antoninus Pius was. It was the
common belief in the time of Eusebius, as it had been during the entire preceding century,
that all the good emperors had been friendly to the Christians, and that only the bad
SUrPLEMENTARY NOTES. 391
emperors had persecuted. Of course, among the good emperors was included the philosophical
Marcus Aurclius (cf. e.g. Tertulliau's Apol. chap. 5, to which Eusebius refers in Bk. V. chap. 5).
It was of Marcus Aurelius, moreover, that the story of the Thundering Legion was told (see ibid.).
]5ut Eusebius was not able to overlook the fact that numerous martyrdoms occurred during the
reign of the successor of Antoninus Pius. He had the documents recording the terrible ])ersecu-
tion at Eyons and Vienne ; he had an apology of Melito, describing the hardships which the
Christians endured under the same emperor (see Bk. IV, chap. 26). He found himself, as an
historian, face to face with two apparently contradictory lines of facts. How was the contradiction
to be solved ? He seems to have solved it by assuming that a confusion of names had taken place,
and that the prince commonly known as Marcus Aurelius, whose noble character was traditional,
and whose friendship to the Christians he could not doubt, was the younger, not the older of the
two brothers, and therefore not responsible for the numerous martyrdoms which took place after
the death of Antoninus Pius. And yet he is not consistent with himself even in his History ; for
he gives the two brothers their proper names when he first mentions them, and says nothing of
an identification of Marcus Aurelius with Lucius. It is not impossible that the words Marcus
Aurelius, which are used nowhere else of the older brother, are an interpolation ; but for this there
is no evidence, and it may be suggested as more probable that at the time when this passage was
written the solution of the difficulty which he gives distinctly in Bk. V. chap. 5 had not yet oc-
curred to him. That he should be able to fancy that Marcus Aurelius was identical with Lucius is
perhaps not strange when we remember how much confusion was caused in the minds of other
writers besides himself by the perplexing identity of the names of the various members of the
Antonine family. To the two successors of Antoninus Pius, the three names, Aurelius, Verus, and
Antoninus, alike belonged. It is not surprising that Eusebius should under the circumstances
think that the name Marcus may also have belonged to the younger one. This supposition would
seem to him to find some confirmation in the fact that the most common official designation of
the older successor of Antoninus Pius was not Marcus Aurelius, but Antoninus simply, or M.
Antoninus. The name Marcus Aurelius or Marcus was rather a popular than an official designa-
tion. Even in the Chronicle there seems to be a hint that Eusebius thought of a possible distinc-
tion between Antoninus the emperor and Marcus, or Marcus Aurelius ; for while he speaks of the
" Emperor Antoninus " at the beginning of the passages in which he recounts the story of the
Thundering Legion (year of Abr. 2188), he says at the close : litercn quoquc exstant Marci regis
(the M. Au re li gravis si mi imperaioris of Jerome looks like a later expansion of the simpler origi-
nal) quilnis tcstatiir copias sicas iainiam perituras Christianorum precibus se^iuitas esse. But even
when he had reached the solution pointed out, Eusebius did not find himself clear of difficulties ;
for his sources put the occurrence of the Thundering Legion after the date at which the younger
brother was universally supposed to have died, and it was difficult on still other grounds to
suppose the prince named Marcus Aurelius already dead in 169 (the date given by Eusebius
himself in his Chronicle for the death of Lucius). In this emergency he came to the conclusion
that there must be some mistake in regard to the date of his death, and possessing no record of
the death of Marcus Aurelius as distinct from Antoninus, he simply passed it by without mention.
That Eusebius in accepting such a lame theory showed himself altogether too much under the
influence of traditional views cannot be denied ; but when we remember that the tradition that
Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor was supported by writers whose honesty and accuracy he
could never have thought of questioning, as well as by the very nature of the case, we must, while
we smile at the result, at least admire his effort to solve the contradiction which he, as an histo-
rian, felt more keenly than a less learned man, unacquainted with the facts on the other side, would
have done.
On Bk. V. chap, i, § 27 (note 26, continued).
See also Bk. VIII. chap. 10, note 5.
On Bk. VI. chap. 2 (note i, continued). Origen's Life and Writings.
Origen Adamantius (on the second name, see Bk. VI. chap. 14, note 12) was of Christian paren-
tage and probably of Greek descent on his father's side (as stated in the previous note), but
whether born in Alexandria or not we do not know. Westcott suggests that his mother may have
been of Jewish descent, because in an epistle of Jerome {ad Patilam : Ep. 39, § i, Migne's ed.)
he is said to have learned Hebrew so thoroughly that he " vied with his mother" in the singing of
psalms (but compare the stricture of Redepenning on this passage, p. 187, note i). The date
of his birth may be gathered from the fact (stated in this chapter) that he was in his seventeenth
39^ THE CHURCH HISTORY OF* EUSEBIUS.
year at the time of his father's death, which gives us 185 or 1S6 as the year of his birth (cf. Rede-
penning, I. p. 417-420, Erste Beilage). We learn from the present chapter that as a boy he
was carefully trained by his father in the Scriptures and afterward in Greek literature, a training
of which he made good use in later life. He was also a pupil of Clement in the catechetical
school, as we learn from chaps. 6 and 14 (on the time, see chap. 6, note 4). He showed
remarkable natural ability, and after the death of his father (being himself saved from martyrdom
only by a device of his mother), when left in poverty with his mother and six younger brothers
(see § 13 of this chapter), he was able, partly by the assistance of a wealthy lady and partly by
teaching literature, to support himself (§ 14). Whether he supported the rest of the family
Eusebius does not state, but his thoroughly religious character does not permit us to imagine that
he left them to suffer. In his eighteenth year, there being no one at the head of the catechetical
school in Alexandria, he was induced to take the school in charge and to devote himself to the
work of instruction in the Christian faith. Soon afterward the entire charge of the work was
officially committed to him by Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria (see chap. 3). He lived at
this time a life of rigid asceticism {ii>id.), and even went so far as to mutilate himself in his zeal
for the prosecution of his work (see chap. 8). His great influence naturally aroused the hostility
of unbelievers against him ; but though many of his pupils suffered martyrdom (see chap. 4), he
himself escaped, we do not know how. Eusebius ascribes his preservation to the providence of
God {ibid.). During these years in which he was at the head of the catechetical school, he
devoted himself with vigor to the study of Greek philosophy, and was for a time a pupil of the
Neo-Platonist Ammonius Saccas (chap. 19). He studied non-Christian thought, as he tells us,
in order that he might be the better able to instruct his pagan and heretical pupils {ibid.). His
labors in the school in time grew so heavy that he was obliged to associate with himself his friend
and fellow-pupil Heraclas, to whom he committed the work of elementary instruction (chap. 15).
It was during this time that he seems to have begun his Hexap/a, having learned Hebrew in order
to fit himself the better for his work upon the Old Testament (chap. 16). During this period
(while Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome, i.e. before 217) he made a brief visit to Rome (chap. 14),
and later he was summoned to Arabia, to give instruction to the governor of that country, and
remained there a short time (chap. 19). Afterward, on account of a great tumult in Alexandria
(see chap. 19, note 22), he left the city and went to Cfesarea in Palestine, where, although only
a layman, he publicly expounded the Scriptures in the church (chap. 19). The bishop Deme-
trius strongly disapproved of this, and summoned him back to Alexandria {ibid.). Upon his
return to Alexandria he entered upon the work of writing Commentaries on the Scriptures (see
chap. 23). During this period he wrote also other important works (see chap. 24).
In the tenth year of Alexander Severus (a.d. 231) he left Alexandria (according to chap. 26)
and took up his residence in Caesarea, leaving his catechetical school in charge of his assistant,
Heraclas. The cause of his departure is stated in chap. 23 to have been " some necessary affairs
of the church " which called him to Greece. (For a statement of the reasons which lead
me, contrary to the common opinion, to identify the departure mentioned in chap. 23 with
that mentioned in chap. 26, see below, p. 395 sq.) Jerome {de vir. ill. c. 54) says that he
went to Achaia on account of heresies which were troubling the churches there. His words are :
Et propter ecclesias Achaicr, qiicc plm-ibus lutresibi/s vexabantur, sub tcstimonio ccclesiastiae
epistolcc Athcnas per Palicsti>iam pergcret. He passed through Palestine on his way to Greece,
and it was at this time that he was ordained a presbyter by the Palestinian bishops (chap. 23),
Theoctistus of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem (according to Jerome, I.e. ; cf. also Euseb.
chap. 8). Whether he remained long in Palestine at this time, or went on at once to Greece, we
do not know; but that a visit (to be distinguished from the second visit mentioned in chap. 32 ;
see note 4 on that chapter) was made we know from a fragment of one of Origen's epistles written
from Athens (printed in Lommatzsch's ed. of Origen's works, XXV. p. 38S) ; with which are to
be compared Epiphanius, Ilcer. LXIV. i, and the remark made by Eusebius in chap. 16, § 2, in
regard to the finding of a copy of a translation in Nicopolis. Origen's ordination resulted in
the complete alienation of the bishop Demetrius (upon his earlier and later attitude toward
Origen, and the causes of the change, see below, p. 394 sq.), and he called a council in Alexandria
of l)ishops and presbyters (the council must have been held very soon after the receipt of the
news of Origen's ordination, for Demetrius died in 232 ; see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4) which
decided that Origen should be required to leave Alexandria and not be allowed to reside or to
teach there, but did not depose him from the priesthood. Afterward, however, Demetrius, com-
bining with some bishops of like mind with himself, deposed Origen from his office, and the sen-
tence was ratified by those who had before voted with him. Photius gives this account in Cod.
1 1 8, quoting from the lost Defense of Pamphilus and Eusebius. Eusebius himself tells us nothing
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES. 393
about these proceedings in his History, but simply refers us (chap. 23) to the second book
of his Defense, which he says contained a full account of the matter. (Upon the bearing of
the wortls quoted by Photius from the Defense, see below, p. 395 sq.) Demetrius wrote of the
result of the council "to the whole world " (according to Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 54), and the
sentence was concurred in by the bishops of Rome and of all the other churches, except those of
Palestine, Arabia, Phcenicia, and Achaia (see Jerome ad Paul. Ep. 33 ; and Apol. adv. libros
Riif. 11. 18). Taking up his abode in C^sarea, Origen made this place his headquarters for the
rest of his life, and found there the most cordial sympathy and support (chap. 27). He carried
on in Ccesarea a catechetical school, expounding the Scriptures, lecturing on theology, and at the
same time continuing his literary labors in peace until the persecution of Maximinus (a.d. 235-
237), during which some of his friends in Csesarea suffered (see chaps. 27, 28, 30, 32, and 36).
How Origen escaped and where he was during the persecution we do not know (see chap. 28,
note 2). In 237 or 238, at any rate, he was (again) in Ccesarea, and at this time Gregory Thau-
maturgus delivered his Panegyric, which is our best source for a knowledge of Origen's methods
of teaching and of the influence which he exerted over his pupils. (Upon the date, see Draeseke,
Der Brief des Origcnes an Gregorios in the Jabrbilcher f. prof. Thcologic, 1887, p. 102 sq.)
During this period he did considerable traveling, making another visit to Athens (see chap. 32)
and two to Arabia (see chaps, t^t^ and 37). It was while in Csesarea, and when he was over
sixty years old, that he first permitted his discourses to be taken down by shorthand writers (see
chap. 26). His correspondence with the Emperor PhiHp and his wife is mentioned by Eusebius
in the same chapter. He was arrested during the Decian persecution and suffered terrible tor-
ments, but not martyrdom (chap. 39). He died not much more than a year after the close of
the persecution, in the seventieth year of his age (see Bk. VII. chap, i), at Tyre, and was buried
there (Jerome, de vir. ill. c. 54).
Origen was without doubt the greatest scholar and the most original thinker of his age. He
was at the same time a man of most devout piety, and employed all his wonderful talents in the
service of what he believed to be the truth. His greatest labors were in the field of exegesis,
and here his writings were epoch-making, although his results were often completely vitiated by
his use of the allegorical method of interpretation and his neglect of the grammatical and his-
torical sense. His services in the cause of scientific theology cannot be overestimated, and his
thinking long stimulated the brightest minds of the Church, both orthodox and heretical. Both
his natural predilections and his training in the philosophy which prevailed in Alexandria in that
day led him in the direction of idealism, and to an excess of this, combined with his deep
desire — common also to Clement — to reconcile Christianity with reason and to commend
it to the minds of philosophers, are due most of his errors, nearly all of which are fascinating
and lofty in conception. Those errors led the Church to refuse him a place among its saints and
even among its Fathers in the stricter sense. Even before his death suspicions of his orthodoxy
were widespread ; and although he had many followers and warm defenders, his views were finally
condemned at a home synod in Constantinople in 543 (?) (see Helele, II. 790). Into the bitter
controversies v/hich raged during the fourth and fifth centuries, and in which Jerome and Rufinus
(the former against, the latter for, Origen) played so large a part we cannot enter here. See the
article Origenistic Controversies in the Diet, of Christ. Biog., or any of the Church histories and
lives of Origen.
Origen was a marvelously prolific writer. Epiphanius (Zfer. LXIV. 63) says that it was com-
monly reported that he had written 6000 works. Jerome reduces the number to less than a third
{adv. Ruf. II. 22). But whatever the number, we know that he was one of the most voluminous
— perhaps the most voluminous writer of antiquity. He wrote works of the most diverse nature,
critical, exegetical, philosophical and theological, apologetic and practical, besides num.erous
epistles. (On his great critical work, the Hexapla, see chap. 16, note 8.) His exegetical works
consisted of commentaries, scholia (or detached notes), and homilies. Of his commentaries on
the Old Testament, which were very numerous, only fragments of those on Genesis, Exodus, the
Psalms, and the Song of Solomon are preserved in the version of Rufinus, and a fragment of the
commentary on Ezekiel in the Philocalia. Of the New Testament commentaries we have numerous
fragments both in Greek and Latin (especially on Matthew and John), and the whole of Romans
in the translation of Rufinus. Upon the commentaries composed by Origen while still in Alex-
andria, see chap. 24 ; on those written afterAvards, see chaps. 32 and 36. No complete scholia
are extant ; but among the numerous exegetical fragments which are preserved there may be
portions of these scholia, as well as of the commentaries and homilies. It is not always possible
to tell to which a fragment belongs. Of the homiUes, over 200 are preserved, the majority of
them in the translation of Rufinus.
394 THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
The philosophical and theological works known to us are the two books On the Resurrection
(see chap. 24, note 5) : the De principiis (see ibid, note 6) ; and the Stroinata (see ibid, note 7).
Origen's great apologetic work is his Contra Celsum (see chap. 36, note 3).
Two works of a practical character are known to us : On Martyrdom (see chap. 28, note 3) ;
and On Prayer. The latter work is not mentioned by Eusebius in his History, but is referred to
in Pamphilus' Apology for Origen, Chap. VIII. (Lommatzsch, XXIV. p. 397). It is extant in the
original Greek, and is printed by Lommatzsch, XVII. p. 79-297. It is addressed to two of his
friends, Ambrosius and Tatiana, and is one of his most beautiful works. As to the date at which
Origen wrote the work, we know (from chap. 23 of the work) only that it was written after the
composition of the commentary on Genesis (see above, Bk, VI. chap. 24), but whether before
or after his departure from Alexandria we cannot tell.
Of his epistles only two are preserved entire, one to Julius Africanus, and another to Gregory
Thaumaturgus. On the former, see chap. 31, note i. On the latter and on Origen's other
epistles, see chap. 36, note 7.
Finally must be mentioned the Philocalia (Lommatzsch, XXV. p. 1-278), a collection of
judiciously selected extracts from Origen's works in twenty-seven books. Its compilers were
Gregory Nazianzen and Basil.
The principal edition of Origen's works is that of the Benedictine Delarue in 4 vols. fol. ;
reprinted by Migne in 8 vols. 8vo. A convenient edition is that of Lommatzsch, in 25 vols,
small 8vo., a revision of Delarue's. Only his De principiis, Contra Cels., and the epistles to Afri-
canus and to Gregory have been translated into English, and are given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. IV. p. 221 sqq. Of lives of Origen must be mentioned that of Huetius : Origeniana (Paris,
1679, in 2 vols.; reprinted in Delarue and Lommatzsch) ; also Redepenning's Origcnes. Eine
DarstcUung seines Lcbens und seiner Lchre (Bonn, 1841 and 1S46, in 2 vols.). The respective
sections in Lardner and Tillemont should be compared, and the thorough article of Westcott in
the Diet, of Christ. Biog. IV. 96-142. For a good hst of the literature on Origen, see Schaff,
Ch. Hist. II. p. 7S5.
On Bk. VI. chap. 8, § 5 (note 4). Origen and Demetrius.
The friendship of Demetrius for Origen began early and continued, apparently without inter-
ruption, for many years. In 203 he committed to him the charge of the catechetical school
(chap. 3) ; in the present chapter we find him encouraging him after learning of his rash deed ;
some years afterward, upon Origen's return from a visit to Rome, where his fame as a teacher had
already become very great, Demetrius still showed the very best spirit toward him (chap. 14) ;
and a little later sent him into Arabia to give instruction to an officer in that country (chap. 19).
It is soon after this that the first sign of a difference between the two men appears, upon the
occasion of Origen's preaching in Csesarea {ibid.). There seems, however, to have been no lasting
quarrel, if there was any quarrel at all; for in 231 we find Demetrius giving Origen letters of
recommendation upon the occasion of his visit to Achaia (see below, p. 396). The fact that
he gives him these letters, thus recognizing him as a member of his church in good standing, and
sending him upon his important mission with his official approval, shows that no open break
between himself and Origen can as yet have taken place. But in his commentary on John (Tom.
VI. prcef.) Origen shows us that his last years in Alexandria were by no means pleasant ones.
He compares his troubles there to the waves of a stormy sea, and his final departure to the exodus
of the children of Israel. We know that he had been -engaged for some time in writing commen-
taries, and that the first five books of his commentary on John — epoch-making in their signifi-
cance, and sure to cause a sensation in orthodox, conservative circles — had recently appeared.
We know that his reputation for heterodoxy was already quite widespread and that the majority
of the Egyptian clergy were by no means upon his side. The trials to which he refers, therefore,
may well have been a result of this hostility to his teachings existing among the clergy about him,
and Demetrius may have shared to an extent in the common feeling. At the same time his dis-
approval cannot have been very pronounced, or he could not have given his official sanction to
Origen's important visit to Achaia. But now, things being in this condition, Origen set out upon
his mission, leaving Heraclas in charge of his school, and undoubtedly with the expectation of
returning again, for he left the unfinished sixth book of his commentary on John behind him (see
preface to the sixth book). He stopped in Palestine on his way to Athens, and there was ordained
a presbyter by the bishops of that country (upon the motives which prompted him in the matter,
see below, p. 397). The result was a complete break between Demetrius and himself, and his
condemnation by an Alexandrian synod. To understand Demetrius' action in the matter, we
must remember that both Eusebius and Jerome attribute the change in his attitude to jealousy of
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES. 395
Origen. They may be too harsh in their judgment, and yet it is certainly not at all unnatural
that the growing power and fame of his young catechumen should in time affect, all unconsciously,
his attitude toward him. But we must not do Demetrius an injustice. There is no sign that his
jealousy led him to attack Origen, or to seek to undermine his influence, and we have no right
to accuse him, without ground, of such unchristian conduct. At the same time, while he remained,
as he su])posed, an honest friend of Origen's, the least feeling of jealousy (and it would have been
remarkable had he never felt the least) would make him more suspicious of the latter's conduct,
and more prone to notice in his actions anything which might be interi)reted as an infringement
of his own i)rerogatives, or a disregard of the full respect due him. We seem to see a sign of
this over-sensitiveness (most natural under the circumstances) in his severe disapproval of Origen's
preaching in Ca^sarea, which surprised the Palestinian bishoi)s, but which is not surprising when
we reali/,e that Demetrius might so easily construe it as a token of growing disrespect for his
authority on the part of his rising young school principal. It is plain enough, if he was in this
state of mind, that he might in all sincerity have given letters of recommendation to Origen and
have wished him God speed upon his mission, and yet that the news of his ordination to the
presbyterate by foreign bishops, without his own approval or consent, and indeed in opposition
to his own principles and to ecclesiastical law, should at once arouse his ire, and, by giving occa-
sion for what seemed righteous indignation, open the floodgates for all the smothered jealousy of
years. In such a temper of mind he could not do otherwise than listen willingly to all the accu-
sations of heresy against Origen, which were no doubt busily circulated in his absence, and it was
inevitable that he should believe it his duty to take decided steps against a man who was a
heretic, and at the same time showed complete disregard of the rules and customs of the Church,
and of the rights of his bishop. The result was the definitive and final exclusion of Origen
from communion with the Alexandrian church, and his degradation from the office of presbyter
by decree of the Alexandrian synods described above, p. 392 sq. The two grounds of
the sentence passed by these synods were plainly his irregular ordination to the priesthood
when constitutionally unfit for it (cf. what Eusebius says in this chapter), and his heterodoxy
(cf. e.g. the synodical epistle of the Egyptian bishops given in Mansi's Collect. Concil. IX.
col. 524, and also Jerome's epistle ad Pammachiuin et Oceanii/n, § 10, and Rufinus'
Apologi in Hicron. II. 21). That the ordination to the priesthood of one who had mutilated
himself was not universally considered uncanonical in the time of Origen is proved by the fact
that the Palestinian bishops (whom Origen cannot have allowed to remain ignorant of his condi-
tion) all united in ordaining him. But the very fact that they all united (which has perplexed
some scholars) leads us to think that they realized that their action was somewhat irregular, and
hence wished to give it sanction by the participation of a number of bishops. The first canon of
the Council of Nica^a forbids such ordination, and the canon is doubtless but the repetition of an
older one (cf. Apost. Canons, 21 to 24, and see Hefele, Conciliengcsch. I. p. 377), and yet
Origen's consent to his ordination makes it improbable that there was in force in his time, even
in Alexandria, a canon placing absolute and unconditional clerical disabilities upon such as he.
That the action, however, was considered at least irregular in Alexandria, is proved by the posi-
tion taken in the matter by Demetrius ; and the fact that he made so much of it leads us to
believe that the synod, called by him, may now have made canon law of what was before only cus-
tom, and may have condemned Origen for violating that custom which they considered as binding
as law. Certainly had there been no such custom, and had it not seemed to Demetrius absolutely
binding, he would have ordained Origen to the priesthood long before. His ordination in Pales-
tine was in violation of what was known to be Demetrius' own principle, and the principle of the
Alexandrian church, even if the principle was not, until this time or later, formulated into a
canon.
On Bk. VI. chap. 12, § 6.
Since this passage was printed, I have seen Westcott's translation of this fragment of Sera-
pion's epistle in his Canon of the New Testament, 5th ed. p. 390 sq. (cf. especially p. 391, note),
and am glad to note that his rendering of the words KaTap$a[X€v<j}v awoC is the same as my own.
His interpretation of one or two other points I am unable to adopt.
On Bk. VI. chap. 23, § 4 (note 6). Origen's Visit to Achaia.
Eusebius gives as the cause of Origen's visit to Greece simply " a pressing necessity in con-
nection with ecclesiastical affairs," but Jerome {de vir. ill. c. 54) tells us that it w^as on account
of heresies which were troubling the churches of Achaia (^ propter ccelesias Achaice, quce pluribiis
hceresibiis vexabantur). Photius (^Cod. 118) reports that Origen went to Athens without the
396 THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
consent of Demetrius (x^P'-'» t^? '''ov olkclov yvw/x.?^; imaKoirov), but this must be regarded as a
mistake (caused perhaps by his knowledge that it was Origen's ordination, which took place during
this trip, that caused Demetrius' anger ; for Photius does not say that this statement rests upon
the authority of Pamphilus, but prefaces his whole account with the words 6 re rTa/Ac^iXos /xaprvs
Kttt €TcpoL TrXeto-Tot), for Jerome {(fe vir. ill. c. 54) says that Origen went to Athens by way of
Palestine sub testimonio ecclesiasticcB epistolce, and in chap. 62 he says that Alexander, bishop
of Jerusalem wrote an epistle in which he stated that he had ordained Origen juxta tesfimonium
Demetrii. We must therefore assume that Origen left Alexandria for Athens with Demetrius'
approval, and with letters of recommendation from him. It is the common opinion that Origen
left Alexandria this time about 228 a.d., and after his visit in Achaia returned to Alexandria,
where he remained until excommunicated by the council called by Demetrius. Upon searching
the sources, however, I can find absolutely no authority for the statement that he returned to
Alexandria after his visit to Achaia ; in fact, that he did seems by most scholars simply to be
taken for granted without further investigation. The opinion apparently rests upon the inter-
pretation of two passages, one in a report of the proceedings of the Alexandrian synod taken by
Photius from Pamphilus' Apology, the other in the preface to the sixth book of Origen's commen-
tary on the Gospel of John. In the former it is said that the synod voted to exile Origen from
Alexandria, and forbade him to reside or to teach there (i/^r^t^t^eTat ixcTaa-TrjvaL fxh dno 'AXe^av-
Spetas Tov 'Clpiyivrjv, kol /j-rJTe. Starpt'^eiv cv avrr}, iJ.rJTe StSacrKciv) . But certainly such a decree is
far from proving that Origen, at the time it was passed, was actually in Alexandria. It simply
shows that he still regarded that city as his residence, and was supposed to be expecting to
return to it after his visit was completed. In the preface to the sixth book of his commentary on
John's Gospel, he speaks of the troubles and trials which he had been enduring in Alexandria
before he finally left the city, and compares that departure to the exodus of the children of
Israel. But certainly it is just as easy to refer these troubles to the time before his visit to
Achaia, a time when in all probability the early books of his commentary on John, as well as
others of his writings, had begun to excite the hostility of the Alexandrian clergy, and thus
made his residence there uncomfortable. It is almost necessary to assume that this hostility
had arisen some time before the synods were held, in order to account both for the hostility
of the majority of the clergy, which cannot have been so seriously aroused in an instant,
and also for the change in Demetrius' attitude, which must have found a partial cause in the
already existing hostility of the clergy to Origen, hostility which led them to urge him on to take
decisive steps against Origen when the fitting occasion for action came in the ordination of
the latter (see above, p. 395). The only arguments which, so far as I am able to learn,
have been or can be urged for Origen's return to Alexandria are thus shown to prove nothing.
On the other hand, it is a fact that Origen was ordained on his way to Achaia, and then went on
and did his business there, and it is difficult to imagine that Demetrius and the Alexandrian
church would have waited so long before taking action in regard to this step, which appeared to
them so serious. More than that, Origen reports that he had begun the sixth book of his com-
mentary on John in Alexandria, but had left it there, and therefore began it anew in Palestine. It
is difficult to imagine that his departure was so hasty that he could not take even his MSS. with
him ; but if he left only for his visit to Achaia, expecting to return again, he would of course
leave his MSS. behind him, and when his temporary absence was changed by the synod into
permanent exile, he might not have been in a position, or might not have cared, to send back for
the unfinished work. Still further, it does not seem probable that, if he were leaving Alexandria
an exile under the condemnation of the church, and in such haste as the leaving of his unfinished
commentary would imply, he should be in a position to entrust the care of his catechetical school
to his assistant Heraclas (as he is said in chap. 26 to have done). That matter would rather
have been taken out of his hands by Demetrius and the rest of the clergy. But going away
merely on a visit, he would of course leave the school in Heraclas' charge, and after his condem-
nation the clergy might see that Heraclas was the man for the place, and leave him undisturbed
in it. After having, upon the grounds mentioned, reached the conclusion, shared so far as I
knew by no one else, that it is at least unlikely that Origen returned to Alexandria after his
visit to Greece, I was pleased to find my position strengthened by some chronological considera-
tions urged by Lipsius {Chronologic d. r'dm. Bischofe, p. 195, note), who says that "we do not
know whether Origen ever returned to Alexandria after his ordination," and who seems to think
it probable that he did not. He shows that Pontianus did not become bishop of Rome until 230,
and therefore, if Eusebius is correct in putting Origen's visit to Achaia in the time of Pontianus'
episcopate, as he does in this passage, that visit cannot have taken place before 230 (the com-
monly accepted date, which rests upon a false chronology of Pontianus' episcopate, is 228) ; while
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES. 397
on the other hand, according to chap. 26, Origen's final departure from Alexandria took place in
the tenth year of Alexander's reign (231 a.d.), shortly before Demetrius' death, which occurred
not later than 232 (see lik. V. chap. 22, note 4). Supposing, then, that Origen returned to
Alexandria, we must assume his journey to Palestine, his ordination there, his visit to Achaia and
settlement of the disputes there, his return to Alexandria, the composition of at least some part of
his commentary on John, the calling of a synod, his condemnation and exile, — all within the
space of about a year. These chronological considerations certainly increase the imi)robability of
Origen's return to Alexandria. (It may be remarked that Redepenning, who accepts the com-
monly received chronology, assigns two years to the Csesarean and Achaian visit.) Assuming,
then, that this departure for Achaia is identical with that mentioned in chap. 26, we put it in the
year 231. It must have been (as of course we should expect, for he stopped in Palestine only
on his way to Achaia) very soon after his departure that Origen's ordination took place ; and the
synod must have been called very soon after that event (as we should hkewise expect), for Deme-
trius died the following year.
As to the cause of Origen's ordination, it is quite possible, as Redepenning suggests, that
when he went a second time to Palestine, his old friends, the bishops of Csesarea, of Jerusalem,
and of other cities, wished to hear him preach again, but that remembering the reproof of the
bishop Demetrius, called forth by his preaching on the former occasion (see chap. 19), he
refused, and that then the Palestinian bishops, in order to obviate that difficulty, insisted on
ordaining him. It is not impossible that Origen, who seems never to have been a stickler for the
exact observance of minor ecclesiastical rules and formalities, supposed that Demetrius, who had
shown himself friendly in the past, and not hostile to him because of his youthful imprudence
(see chap. 8), would concur willingly in an ordination performed by such eminent bishops, and
an ordination which would prove of such assistance to Origen in the accomplishment of the work
in Achaia which he was undertaking with the approval of Demetrius himself, even though the
latter could not bring himself to violate what he considered an ecclesiastical canon against the
ordination of eunuchs. We can thus best explain Origen's consent to the step which, when we
consider his general character, it is difficult to suppose he would have taken in conscious opposi-
tion to the will of his bishop. (On Demetrius' view of the matter, see above, p. 394 sq.) He
was ordained, according to Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 54 (cf. also chap. 8, above), by Theoctistus,
bishop of Csesarea, and Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, together with " the most distinguished
bishops of Palestine " (as Eusebius says in chap. 8).
On Bk. VII. chap. 25, § 11.
For in the reputed second or third Epistle of John, read in the extant second and third Epistles
of John {Iv T17 BcvTepa cf)epo[j.evrj 'loidvvov Koi rpLTrj),
On Bk. VII. chap. 26, § 1 (note 4, continued).
On Dionysius' attitude toward Sabellianism and the occasion of the Apology (cXeyx^^ koI olttoXo-
yta) in four books, which he addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note i. This
work is no longer extant, but brief fragments of it have been preserved by Athanasius (in his
JDe Sent. Z>ionysii) and by Basil (in his De Spir. Sancto) . English translation in the Ante-
Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 92 sq. The longer work was preceded by a shorter one, now lost, to
which reference is made in one of the fragments of the longer work. We do not know the exact
date of the work, but may assign it with considerable probability to the earlier part of the episco-
pate of Dionysius of Rome ; that is, soon after 259. Upon this work and upon Dionysius' attitude
toward Sabellianism, see especially Dittrich, Dionysius dcr Grosse, p. 91. sq.
On Bk. VIII. chap. 2, § 4 (note 3, continued). The Causes of the Diocletian Persecution.
The persecution of Diocletian, following as it did a period of more than forty years during
which Christianity had been recognized as a religio licita, and undertaken as it was by a man
who throughout the first eighteen years of his reign had shown himself friendly to the Chris-
tians, and had even filled his own palace with Christian servants, presents a very difficult
problem to the historian. Why did Diocletian persecute? The question has taxed the
ingenuity of many scholars and has received a great variety of answers. Hunziker (in his
Regierung und Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Diocletianus und seiner Nachfolger, Leipzig,
1869), Burckhardt (in his Zeit Constantins, Basel, 1853, 2d and improved edition, Leipzig,
1880), and A. J. Mason (in his Persecution of Diocletian, Cambridge and London, 1876),
not to mention other investigators, have treated the subject with great ability and at considerable
398 THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
length, and the student is referred to their works for a fuller examination of the questions involved.
It is not my purpose here to discuss the various views that have been presented by others ; but
inasmuch as I am unable fully to agree with any of them, I desire to indicate my own conception
of the causes that led to the persecution. We are left almost wholly to conjecture in the matter ;
for our only authority, Lactantius, makes so many palpably erroneous statements in his descrip-
tion of the causes which produced the great catastrophe that little reliance can be placed upon
him (see Burckhardt's demonstration of these errors, ibid. p. 2S9 sq.). Nevertheless, he has pre-
served for us at least one fact of deep significance, and it is a great merit of Mason's discussion
that he has proved so conclusively the correctness of the report. The fact I refer to is that the
initiative came from Galerius, not from Diocletian himself. Lactantius states this very distinctly
and repeatedly, but it has been argued by Hunziker and many others that the persecution had
been in Diocletian's mind for a long time, and that it was but the culmination of his entire policy.
Having settled political matters, it is said, he turned his attention to religious matters, and deter-
mined as a step toward the restoration of the old Roman religion in its purity to exterminate
Christianity. But, as Mason shows, this is an entire misconception of Diocletian's policy. It had
never been his intention to attack Christianity. Such an attack was opposed to all his principles,
and was at length made only under the pressure of strong external reasons. But though Mason
has brought out this important fact so clearly, and though he has shown that Galerius was the
original mover in the matter, he has, in my opinion, gone quite astray in his explanation of the
causes which led Diocletian to accede to the wishes of Galerius. According to Mason, Diocle-
tian was induced against his will to undertake a course of action which his judgment told him
was unwise. " But the Cresar [Galerius] was the younger and the stronger man ; and a determi-
nation to do has always an advantage over the determination not to do. At length Diocletian
broke down so far as to offer to forbid the profession of the faith within the walls of his palace
and under the eagles of his legions. He was sure it was a mistaken policy. It was certainly
distasteful to himself. The army would suffer greatly by the loss. Diocletian would have to part
with servants to whom he was attached," &c. To my mind, it is impossible to believe that
Diocletian — great and wise emperor as he had proved himself, and with an experience of over
eighteen years of imperial power during which he had always shown himself master — can thus
have yielded simply to the importunity of another man. Our knowledge of Diocletian's character
should lead us to repudiate absolutely such a supposition. Feeling the difficulty of his own sup-
position. Mason suggests that Diocletian may have felt that it would be better for him to begin
the persecution himself, and thus hold it within some bounds, than to leave it for Galerius to con-
duct when he should become emperor two years later. But certainly if, as Mason assumes, Dio-
cletian was convinced that the measure was in itself vicious and impolitic, that was a most
remarkable course to pursue. To do a bad thing in order to leave no excuse for a successor
to do the same thing in a worse way — certainly that is hardly what we should expect from
the strongest and the wisest ruler Rome had seen for three centuries. If he beheved it ought
not to be done, we may be sure he would not have done it, and that neither Galerius
nor any one else could compel him to. He was not such a helpless tool in the hands of
others, nor was he so devoid of resources as to be obliged to prevent a successor's folly and
wickedness by anticipating him in it, nor so devoid of sense as to believe that he could. It is,
in my opinion, absolutely necessary to assume that Diocletian was convinced of the necessity of
proceeding against the Christians before he took the step he did. How then are we to account
for this change in his opinions? Burckhardt attributes the change to the discovery of a plot
among the Christians. But the question naturally arises, what motive can the Christians have
had for forming a plot against an emperor so friendly to them and a government under which
they enjoyed such high honors? Burckhardt gives no satisfactory answer to this very pertinent
query, and consequently his theory has not found wide acceptance. And yet I believe he is upon
the right track in speaking of a plot, though he has not formed the right conception of its causes
and nature, and has not been able to urge any known facts in direct support of his theory. In
my opinion the key to the mystery lies in the fact which Lactantius states and the truth of which
Mason demonstrates, but which Burckhardt quite overlooks, that the initiative came from Galerius,
not Diocletian, viewed in the light of the facts that Galerius had long been known to be a bitter
enemy of the Christians, and that he was to succeed Diocletian within a couple of years. The
course of events might be pictured somewhat as follows. Some of the Christian officials and
retainers of Diocletian, fearing what might happen upon the accession of Galerius, who was known
to be a deadly enemy of the Christians, and who might be expected, if not to persecute, at least
to dismiss all the Christian officials that had enjoyed Diocletian's favor (Galerius himself liad
only heathen officials in his court), conceived the idea of frustrating in some way the appointed
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES. 399
succession and secure it for some one who would he more favorable to them (possibly for the
young Constantine, who was then at Diocletian's court, and who, as we know, was later so cor-
dially hated by ("lalerius). It may have been hoped by some of them that it would be possible in
the end to win Diocletian himself over to the side of Christianity, and then induce him to change
the succession and transmit the power to a fitter prince. There may thus have been nothing dis-
tinctly treasonable in the minds of any of them, but there may have been enough to arouse the
suspicions of Galerius himself, who was the one most deeply interested, and who was always well
aware of the hatred which the Christians entertained toward him. We are told by Lactantius
that Galerius spent a whole winter with Diocletian, endeavoring to persuade him to persecute.
The latter is but a conclusion drawn by Lactantius from the events which followed ; for he tells us
himself that their conferences were strictly private, and that no one knew to what they pertained.
But why did the persecution of the Christians at this particular time seem so important a thing to
Galerius that he should make this long and extraordinary visit to Nicomedia? iVas it the result
of a fresh accession of religious zeal on his part? I confess myself unable to believe that Galerius'
piety lay at the bottom of the matter, and at any rate, knowing that he would himself be master
of the empire in two years, why could he not wait until he could take matters into his own hands
and c^arry them out after his own methods? No one, so far as I know, has answered this ques-
tion ; and yet it is a very pertinent one. It might be said that Galerius was afraid that he should
not be able to carry out such measures unless they had had the sanction of his great predecessor.
But Cialerius never showed, either as Caesar or Augustus, any lack of confidence in himself, and I
am inclined to think that he would have preferred to enjoy the glory of the great undertaking
himself rather than give it all to another, had he been actuated simply by general reasons of
hostility toward the Church. But if we suppose that he had conceived a suspicion of such a plan
as has been suggested, we explain fully his remarkable visit and his long and secret interviews with
Diocletian. There was no place in which he could discover more about the suspected plot
(which he might well fancy to be more serious than it really was) than in Nicomedia itself;
and if such a plot was on foot, it was of vital importance to unearth it and reveal it to Diocletian.
We may believe then that Galerius busied himself during the whole winter in investigating
matters, and that long after he had become thoroughly convinced of the existence of a plot
Diocletian remained skeptical.
We may suppose that at the same time whatever vague plans were in the minds of any of the
Christians were crystallizing during that winter, as they began to realize that Galerius' hold upon
the emperor was such that the latter could never be brought to break with him. We may thus
imagine that while Galerius was seeking evidence of a plot, the plot itself was growing and taking
a more serious shape in the minds at least of some of the more daring and worldly minded
Christians. Finally, sufficient proof was gathered to convince even Diocletian that there was
some sort of a plot on foot, and that the plotters were Christians. The question then arose what
course should be pursued in the matter. And this question may well have caused the calling
together of a number of counsellors and the consultation of the oracle of Apollo of which
Lactantius tells us. Galerius naturally wished to exterminate the Christians as a whole, knowing
their universal hostility to him ; but Diocletian just as naturally wished to punish only such as were
concerned in the plot, and was by no means convinced that the Christians as a whole were
engaged in it. The decision which was reached, and which is exhibited in the edict of the
24th of February, 303, seems to confirm in a remarkable manner the theory which has
been presented. Instead of issuing an edict against Christians in general, Diocletian directs his
blows solely against Christians in governmental circles, — public officials and servants in official
families (cf. the interpretation of the edict given above in Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 6). This is cer-
tainly not the procedure of an emperor who is persecuting on religious grounds. The church
officers should in that case have been first attacked as they had been by Decius and Valerian.
The singling out of Christians in official circles — and the low as well as the high ones, the
servants as well as the masters — is a clear indication that the motive was political, not religious.
Moreover, that the edict was drawn in such mild terms is a confirmation of this. These men
were certainly not all guilty, and it was not necessary to put them all to death. It was necessary to
put an end to the plot in the most expeditious and complete way. The plotters should be shown
that their plot was discovered, and the whole thing should be broken up by causing some of them
to renounce their faith, by degrading and depriving of citizenship all that would not renounce it.
It was a very shrewd move. Executions would but have increased the rebellious spirit and
caused the plot to spread. But Diocletian was well aware that any one that renounced his faith
would lose caste with his fellow-Christians, and even if he had been a plotter in the past, he could
never hope to gain anything in the future from the accession of a Christian emperor. He was
400 THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
careful moreover to provide against any danger from those who refused to renounce their faith, by put-
ting them into a position where it would be impossible for them to accomplish anything in that line in
the future. He knew that a plot which had no support within official circles would be of no account
and was not to be feared. The action, based on the grounds given, was worthy of Diocletian's gen-
ius ; explained in any other way it becomes, in my opinion, meaningless. A further confirmation
of the view which has been presented is found in the silence of Lactantius and Eusebius. The
former was in Nicomedia, and cannot have failed to know the ostensible if not the true cause of
the great persecution. Diocletian cannot have taken such a step without giving some reason for
it, and doubtless that reason was stated in the preambles of his edicts, as is the case in the
edicts of other emperors ; but as it happens, while we know the substance of all the edicts, not
a single preamble has been preserved. May it not be possible that the Christians, who preserved
the terms of the edicts, found the preambles distasteful because derogatory to some of themselves
and yet unfortunately not untrue ? The reasons which Lactantius gives are palpable makeshifts,
and indeed he does not venture to state them categorically. " I have learned," he says, " that
the cause of his fury was as follows." Doubtless he had heard it thus in Christian circles ; but
doubtless he had heard it otherwise from heathen or from the edicts themselves ; and he can
hardly, as a sensible man, have been fully satisfied with his own explanation of the matter.
Eusebius attempts no explanation. He tells us in chapter i, above, that the Church just before
the persecution was in an abominable state and full of unworthy Christians, and yet he informs
us that he will pass by the unpleasant facts to dwell upon the brighter side for the edification of
posterity. Was the cause of the persecution one of the unpleasant facts ? He calls it a judgment
of God. Was it a merited judgment upon some who had been traitors to their country? He
gives us his opinion as to the causes of the persecution of Decius and Valerian ; why is he
silent about the causes of this greatest of all the persecutions ? His silence in the present case is
eloquent.
The course of events after the publication of the First Edict is not difficult to follow. Fire
broke out twice in the imperial palace. Lactantius ascribes it to Galerius, who was supposed to have
desired to implicate the Christians ; but, as Burckhardt remarks, Diocletian was not the man to be
deceived in that way, and we may dismiss the suspicion as groundless. That the fires were accidental
is possible, but extremely improbable. Diocletian at least believed that they were kindled by
Christians, and it must be confessed that he had some ground for his belief. At any rate, whether
true or not, the result was the torture (for the sake of extorting evidence) and the execution of
some of his most faithful servants (see Bk. VHL chap. 6). It had become an earnest matter
with Diocletian, and he was beginning to feel — as he had never had occasion to feel before — that
a society within the empire whose claims were looked upon as higher than those of the state
itself, and duty to which demanded, in case of a disagreement between it and the state, insub-
ordination, and even treason, toward the latter, was too dangerous an institution to tolerate
longer, however harmless it might be under ordinary circumstances. It was at about this time
that there occurred rebellions in Melitene and Syria, perhaps in consequence of the publication
of the First Edict ; at any rate, the Christians, who were regarded with ever increasing suspicion,
were believed to be in part at least responsible for the outbreaks, and the result was that a
second edict was issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches should be thrown into
prison (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 6). Here Diocletian took the same step taken by Decius and
Valerian, and instituted thereby a genuine religious persecution. It was now Christians as Chris-
tians whom he attacked ; no longer Christian officials as traitors. The vital difference between
the first and second edicts is very clear. All that followed was but the legitimate carrying out of
the principle adopted in the Second Edict, — the destruction of the Church as such, the extermi-
nation of Christianity.
On Bk. X. chap. 8, § 4 (note i, a).
After Constantine's victory over Maxentius, his half-sister Constantia, daughter of Constantius
Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, was married to Licinius, and thus the alliance of the two
emperors was cemented by family ties. Constantius Chlorus was a grandson of Crispus, brother
of the Emperor Claudius II., and hence could claim to be, in a sense, of imperial extraction ; a
fact which gave him a dignity beyond that of his colleagues, who were all of comparatively low
birth. Constantine himself and his panegyrists always made much of his illustrious descent.
TABLES.— Bishops of Rome.
401
A List of the Bishops of Rome, mentioned by Eusedius; with their Dates.
In the following Table the names in the first column are according to the order adopted by Eusebius,
with a reference to the chapter in his Ecclesiastical History where their accession is noted. In col. 2
the Date of Accession is given according to the computation from the Ecclesiastical History made by Clinton
in his Chronology (p. 467). The Duration of Years in col. 3 is that given by Eusebius.
The Dates of Accession and Duration according to Eusebius' Chronicle (cols. 4 and 5), and differing
considerably from those of his Ecclesiastical History, also follow Clinton's Chronology (p. 467).
The Duration of Years from the early Liberian Catalogues (col. 6) follows the edition of Bucher (printed
by Migne, Fatrol., vol. cxxvii., col. 119 — 122). The various readings, however, derived from different MSS.,
and revision by Editors are extremely numerous. Moreover, scarcely one of the entries as given by Bucher
professedly from early Vatican MSS., agrees with that representing the same Bishop of Rome in either of
tlie early Corbcy MSS., printed by Mabillon in his Vetera Analecta (Paris, 1723, pp. 218, 219).
The Duiations of each Episcopate according to Anastasius (col. 7) follow Migne's Edition of that Author
(Patrol, vol. cxxvii. col. 1003 — 1512, and vol. cxxviii. col. 9 — 19). These are also subject to various readings.
It will at once be seen how confused is the state of the chronology of the Early Bishops of Rome.
The eighth column gives the dates as revised by comparison of various data, and adapted to his general
system of Chronology by Clinton (Chronology, ed. 1853, pp. 465, 466).
List of Popes as glTcn by EuecljiuB.
According to Eccl.
Hist, of Eusetius.
Accordingto Chron-
icle of Eusebius.
According to
Liberian Catalogues.
According to
Anastasius.
Eevised
Dates.
Acces-
Dura
Acces-
Dura-
_
ACCES-
Duration.
Duration.
sion.
TION.
sion.
tion.
SION.
Peter.
A.D. 39
20 yrs.
25
V. I W
. 9'/.
25 _y. I m
. Sd.
t. Linus.
Lib. III. cnf.
13
.\.D. 68
1 2;'; J-.
66
14
12
4
12
15
3
12
[CietusV]
6
2
10
12
I
II
2. Anencletus.
>j ??
13
80
12
79
8
12
10
3
9
2
10
3. Clement
>> >>
»5
92
[9]
«7
9
9
II
12
9
2
10
4. Evaristus.
Lib. IV. cnf>.
I
100
8
95
8
13
7
2
13
6
2
5. Alexander.
j> j»
4
109
10
103
10
7
2
I
8
5
2
6. Xystus I.
»> 5>
5
119
10
114
II
10
3
21
10
3
21
A.D. 117
7. Telesphorus.
)> 9>
10
128
II
124
II
II
3
3
II
3
22
127
S. Hyginus.
91 l>
II
130
4
134
4
12
3
6
4
3
8
138
9. Pius I.
»> >»
11
142
15
I3«
15
20
4
21
19
4
3
142
10. Anicetus.
» J >>
19
157
II
152
II
[II
4
3-]
9
3
3
150
II. Soter.
Lib. V. rre/.
168
8
164
8
9
3
2
9
3
0
162
1 2. Eleutherus.
,, ca/>.
22
177
13
173
IS
15
3
21
15
6
5
171
13. Victor 1.
>» > J
22
189
10
186
12
12
0
10
10
2
ID
185
14. Zepheriiius.
>» j>
28
201
18
2CX)
12
18
0
10
17
2
ID
197
I ;. Callixtus I.
Lib. \'I. arf.
2!
218
5
212
9
5
2
10
6
2
10
217
16. Urbanus I.
jj >»
21
223
8
220
9
8
II
12
8
II
II
222
17. Pontianus.
>> )>
23
231
6
230
9
5
2
7
5
2
2
230
18. Anteros
j» >>
29
238
I «/.
23S
I ;//.
0
I
10
12
I
I I
235
19. Fabianus.
>» j>
29
238
) »
IT, yrs.
14
I
10
14
10
II
236
20. Cornelius.
»» >j
39
250
3 yrs.
247
2
3
10
3
2
10
250
21. Lucius.
Lib. VII. ai/.
2
252
8 ms.
252
2 m.
3
8
10
3
8
3
252
22. Stephanus I.
'> > J
2
254
2 yrs.
J)
2 yrs.
4
2
21
4
2
10
252
23. Xystus H.
>> >j
5
255
II
255
II
2
II
6
2
II
6
257
24. Dionysius.
>> )j
27
266
9
263
12
8
2
4
2
3
7
259
25. Felix I.
>» >»
30
275
5
273
(19)
5
12
25
2
ID
25
270
26. Eutychianus.
'» >»
32
280
10 ttis.
280
2 ;«.
8
II
3
8
10
4
275
27. Caius.
>» j»
32
281
iSyrs.
j»
IS yrs.
12
4
7
1 1
4
9
283
28. Marcellinus.
>» j>
32
296
296
9'
8
3
25
8
II
22
296
29. Marcelius.
I
6
20
5
6
21
308
30. Eusebius.
304
7 w.
0
4
16
2
I
25
310
31. Melciades.
304
3 yrs.
3
6
8
3
7
12
310
32. Silvester I.
3"
23
21
II
0
23
10
12
314
33. Marcus.
330
8;//.
0
8
20
2
8
20
336
34. Juhus.
330
i6_j'4w
15
I
II
II
2
7
337
' The order given in Eusebius is very distinct, and is here followed : — Linus, Anencletus, Clemens, and
Evarestus. In the Liberian Catalogues Cletus is interpolated, and the list runs : — Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus,
and Evarestus. Anastasius adopts a third order, thus : — Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus, Evarestus.
2 The MS. followed by Bucher omits Anicetus altogether. Editors have supplied the figures from other lists.
^ These later dates are from the Chronicle of Eusebius as continued by Jerome.
VOL. I.
Dd
402 TABLES.— Bishops of Jerusalem, &c., and Emperors of Rome.
A List of the Bishops of Jerusalem, mentioned by Eusebius ; with some Dates.
The Material upon which to compute the Chronology is very slight. The following Dates of Accession
must be taken as only approximate.
Access.
Access.
Access.
I. James. Lib
. IL
cap. 23
15-
Judas. Lib. \N.cap. 5
29.
Dolichianus. Lib.V.f.12
2. Simeon.
in.
II
A.D. 62
16.
Marcus. V. 12
A.D. 136
30.
Narcissus. ,, ,,
A.D. 189
3. Justus I.
, ,
35
,. 107
17-
Cassianus. ,, ,,
31-
Dius. Lib. VI. cap. 10
M 197
4. ZacchaDus.
IV.
5
„ 112
18.
Publius. ,, ,,
32.
Germanic. ,, ,,
5. Tobias.
»)
19-
Maximus. ,, ,,
33-
Gordius. ,, ,,
6. Benjamin.
)»
20.
Julian. ,, ,,
Narcissus, again.
,, 210
7. Joannes.
» f
21.
Gains I. ,, ,,
M 160
34-
Alexander. Lib. VI. r. 11
,, 212
8. Matthias.
)>
22.
Symmachus ,, ,,
35-
Maaabanes ,, 39
,, 260
9. Philip.
>>
23-
Gaius II. ,, ,,
36.
Hymenceus. VII. 14
,, 265
lo. Seneca.
))
24.
Julian II. ,, ,,
37-
Zambdas. ,, 32
,, 298
II. Justus IL
)»
25-
Capito. ,, ,,
38.
Hermon. ,, „
.. 300
12. Levi.
) »
26.
[Maximus II.] ,,
39-
[Macarius.] „ „
M 324
13. Ephraim.
) )
27.
[Antoninus.] ,, ,,
14. Joseph.
>»
28.
Valens. ,, „
A List of the Bishops of Antioch, mentioned by Eusebius ; with their Dates.
The Material for the Chronology is imperfect. The Dates are those computed by Clinton.
Ac.
Ac.
Ac.
I. Evodius.
Lib. III.
cap. 22
?43
8. Serapion. Li
). V.
cap. 19
190
14. Demetrian. Lib. VII.
cap. 14
252
2. Ignatius.
»1
36
?7o
9. Asclepiades.
VI.
II
?20^
15. Paul of Samosata. ,,
27
?26r
3. Hero.
IV.
20
"5
10. Philetus.
9)
21
218
16. Domnus. ,,
30
270
4. Cornelius.
>»
J 1
129
II. Zebinus.
>1
23
229
17. Timseus. ,,
32
272
5. Eros.
J»
!>
143
12. Babylas.
?1
29
?238
18. Cyril.
) )
280
6. Theophilus.
>>
» 9
171
13. Fabius.
>>
39
250
19. Tyrannus. ,,
))
302
7. Maximinus.
99
24
183
[Vilalis.]
?3M
A List of the Bishops of Alexandria, mentioned by Eusebius ; with their Dates.
The Dates of Accession are those computed by Clinton. The Duration that given by Eusebius.
Ace.
Trs.
I.
Annianus.
Lib.II.
cap.2^
63
22
2.
Abilius.
IIL
14
«=;
13
3-
Cerdon.
>»
21
98
ri4i
4-
Primus.
IV.
I 109
11
.S-
Justus.
>>
4 1 20
II
6.
Eumenes.
>>
5
131
13
7. Marcus. Lib-IV-f^/.u
8. Celadion. ,, ,,
9. Agrippinus. ,, 19
10. Julian. V. 9
11. Demetrius. „ 22
ice
143
Trs.
10
12. Heraclas. I
ib. VL
^- 3
Ace.
233
Trs
153
168
14
12
13. Dionysius.
14. Maximus.
VII.
29
II
249
265
18
kSo
10
15. Theonas.
? 5
32
28^,
19
190
16. Peter I.
17. Achilles.
>>
11
301
?3i6
12
Table of Roman Emperors ; with their Dates.
The Chronology followed is that of Clinton.
Augustus B. c.
27— A.D. 14
Commodus
A.D. 180-
-192
[^milian]
Tiberius
A.D. 14—37
Pertinax
193
Valerian
Caius Caligula
37-41
Didius Julianus
193
Gallienus
Claudius
41-5 +
Pescennius Niger
193-
-194
Claudius II.
Nero
54—68
Septimius Severus
193-
211
Aurelian
Galba
68-69
Caracalla
211-
-217
Tacitus
Otho
69
Geta
211-
-212
Probus
Vitellius
69
Opilius Macrinus
217-
-218
Carus
Vespasian
69—79
Elagabalus
218-
-222
[Carinus]
Titus
79-81
Alexander Severus
222-
-235
[Numerian]
Domitian
81—96
Maximin I.
235-
-238
Diocletian
Nerva
96—98
Gordian I., II.
238
Maximian
Trajan
98-116
Clodius Pupix'nus
9)
Constantius
Hadrian
117— 138
Ccelius Balbinus
))
Galerius
Antoninus Pius
i3«-i6i
Gordian III.
238-
-244
[Maxentius]
Marcus Aurclius
Philip
244-
-249
Constantine
[i.q. Antoninus Verus]
161—180
Decius
249-
-251
Licinius
Lucius Vcrus
161 -169
Gallus
251-
-252
Maximin II.
A.D. 253—254
253 — 260
253—268
268—270
270—275
275 — 276
276—282
282—283
283—285
283—284
284—305
286—305
305—306
305—311
306 — 312
306—337
306—327
308—313
TABLES.— Roman Months.
403
The Roman Months.
The first day of each month was named * The Kalends,' because on that day people were
summoned (calare = Gr. KoKtiv) by the Pontifex, and the commencement of the month was
announced together with other matters in connection with the Kalendar.
1\\Qfiflh day of Jan., Feb., April, June, Aug., Sept., and Dec. (and the seventh day of March,
May, July, and October) was named *The Nones,' because it was the ninth day, inclusive,
before the Ides.
The tJiirteenth day of Jan., Feb., April, June, Aug., Sept., and Dec, (and X\\e fifteenth day
of March, May, July, and October) was named * The Ides ' (the word supposed to come from an
old Etruscan verb iduare = to divide).
The mode of reckoning the intermediate days, however, was backwards. The second day
of the month would be called the fourth (or sixth as the case might be) before the Nones of
that month.
So also the eighth day of the month would be called the sixth (or the eighth as the case
might be) before the Ides of that month.
And so again the sixteenth of the month would be called the seventeenth (or the fourteentJi
or the sixteenth as the case might be) before the Kalends of the month following.
It may, however, be added that there are anomalies in the writing of the date in Latin which sometimes tend
to obscure it. The words are seldom, if ever, written in full, and III Kal. Feb. (i.e., tertio Kalendas Februarias)
would be found, rather than tertio die ante Kalendas Februarias, for the 30th day of January : the word die being
understood, and ante being omitted before Kalendas, Nonas, and Idtis. A further complication ensues in the
common form for the same of a. d. Ill Kal. Feb., i.e., ante diem tertittm Kalendas Februarias, which form can only
be explained by supposing the ante to have for some reason changed its place, and the ablative {die tertio) turned
at the same time into the accusative, producing the false appearance of the diem being governed by the ante.
March ;
April ;
For the month of
February.
also [May.]
also [June.]
August ; also
January.
[July.]
[September.]
[December.]
[October.]
[November.]
1
Kai,end/e Jamtaria:.
Kalends Fcbr.
Kalends y7/a;V".
KAI-END/E/i/;-//''.
Kalends Aug''.
2
iv Nonas Janiiarias.
iv Nonas ,,
vi Nonas ,,
iv Nonas ,,
iv Nonas ,,
3
iii ,, ,,
iii >,
IV
iii ,,
iii » »
4
Pridie Nonas ,,
I'rid. Non. ,,
^ ) J » J
Prid. Non. „
Prid. Non. ,,
5
NON/E JanuariiT.
NoN/E Feb.
iii ..
NON^ Apriles".
NoN.« Azi^^^.
6
viii Idus janiiarias.
viii Idus Fib.
I'lid.Non. ,,
viii Idus .-tpr'^.
viii Idus Aug'.
7
vii ,, ,,
vii „
NoN/E Marlicv".
vii ,,
iv „
8
vi „ „
vi „
viii Idus Mail".
VI „
iii » »
9
V „ „
V >» )>
vii n „
y J > » J
V tt )>
10
iv „ ,,
iv „
vi „ »
** 99 99
vi „
11
iii „ >>
"1
^ 5> >>
iii ,,
vii „
12
Pridie Idus ,,
Prid. Idus ,,
iv „
Prid. Idus ,,
Prid. Id. „
13
Idus Janiiariie.
1 1) lis Febriiaritv.
iii .> >•
Idus Aprih-s''.
Idus Augiistce'.
14
xix Kalendas Febriiar.
xvi Kal. Mart.
Prid. Idus ,,
xviii Kal. A/aias ''
xix Kal. SeptK
15
xviii ,, „
XV ,, ,,
Idus Mart"".
xvii „ „
xviii,,
16
xvii ,, ,,
xiv ,,
xvii Kal. Apr ''.
xvi ,,
xvii ,, ,,
17
xvi „ „
xm ,,
xvi „
XV ,, ,,
xvi ,, ,,
18
XV ,, ,,
J^.'i .,
•'^v „ „
xiv „
^^ J J 99
19
xiv „ „
XI J, ),
xiv „ ,,
xiii ,, ,,
xiv ,,
20
xiii ,, ,,
X ,, J,
xiii ,, ,,
^11 99 >»
xiii ,,
21
xii ,, ,,
'X , , ,,
^ji ., „
xi ,,
xii „
22
XI ), >j
viii ,,
XI >i ),
X ,> >>
XI ,, ,,
23
X ,, ))
vii „
X jj J,
ix ,, ,,
X ,, i>
24
IX ,, ,,
VI » ,,
ix ,,
viii ,,
IX ,, ,,
25
viii ,, ,,
V ,, ,,
viii ,, ,,
vii ,,
viii ,, ,,
26
vii
iv ,, „
vii ,, ,,
vi „
vii M ,>
27
vi ,, ,,
iii ,. ,,
vi ,, ,,
V
vi „ ,,
28
V ,, ,,
Prid. Kal. Mart.
V
iv ,,
V >> >>
29
iv ,, ,,
iv ,, ,,
iii M
iv „
30
iii ,, >.
iii ,, ,,
Prid. Kal. lilaias''
iii ,,
31
Pridie Kal. Fcbruar.
Prid. Kal. At'r'\
Prid. Kal. Sept '.
" Or Maice (as) ; Julia [as) ; Octobres, respectively.
'' Or: yufiias ; Atiguslas ; Novembres, respectively.
'' Ox Junice (as) ; Septembres ; Novembres, respectively.
U d 2
" Or Julias ; Odobres ; Decembres, respective!)'.
•^ Or Decembres.
Or Jauuarias.
404
TABLES.— Macedonian Months.
Table of Macedonian Months.
The months of the Macedonian year, as commonly employed in the time of Eusebius, corre-
sponded exactly to the Roman months, but the year began with the first of September, Tlie
names of the months were as follows : —
Macedonian.
Roman.
I.
2.
Gorpiaeus.
Hyperberetccur,.
Dius.
September.
October.
November.
4-
Apellaeus.
Audynaeus.
Peritius.
December.
January.
February.
Macedonian.
Roman.
7-
Dystrus.
March.
8.
Xanthicus.
April.
9-
Artemisius.
May.
lO.
Daesius.
June.
II.
Panemus.
July.
12.
Lous.
August.
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE,
By EUSEBIUS,
TOGETHER WITH THE
ORATION OF CONSTANTINE TO THE ASSEMBLY
OF THE SAINTS,
AND THE
ORATION OF EUSEBIUS IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE,
A REVISED TRANSLATION, WITH PROLEGOMENA AND NOTES, BY
ERNEST GUSHING RICHARDSON, Ph.D.,
LIBRARIAN AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.
I
PROLEGOMENA.
I, CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
IL SPECIAL PROLEGOMENA.
PREFACE.
In accordance with the instruction of the editor-in-chief the following work consists of a revis-
ion of the Bagster translation of Eusebius' " Life of Constantine," Constantine's " Oration to the
Saints," and Eusebius' " Oration in Praise of Constantine," with somewhat extended Prolegomena
and limited notes, especial attention being given in the Prolegomena to a study of the Character
of Constantine. In the work of revision care has been taken so far as possible not to destroy the
style of the original translator, which, though somewhat inflated and verbose, represents perhaps
all the better, the corresponding styles of both Eusebius and Constantine, but the number of
changes really required has been considerable, and has caused here and there a break in style in
the translation, whose chief merit is that it presents in smooth, well-rounded phrase the gener-
alized idea of a sentence. The work on the Prolegomena has been done as thoroughly and
originally as circumstances would permit, and has aimed to present material in such way that the
general student might get a survey of the man Constantine, and the various problems and discus-
sions of which he is center. It is impossible to return special thanks to all who have given special
facilities for work, but the peculiar kindness of various helpers in the Bibliothcqiie de la Ville at
Lyons demands at least the recognition of individualized thanksgiving.
E. C. R.
Hartford, Conn., April 15, 1890.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
I. GENERAL PROLEGOMENA: Constantine the Great.
CHAPTER L — Life.
§
§
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ S
§
PACE
Early years 41 1
The first five years of reign 413
Situation in 311 414
Second five years 416
Third five years. ... 418
Fourth five years 418
Fifth five years 419
Sixth five years 419
Last years 420
CHAPTER H. — Character.
§ I. Introduction 420
§ 2. Inherited characteristics 421
§ 3. Physical characteristics. ... 421
§ 4. Mental characteristics 422
§ 5, Moral characteristics 423
§ 6. Religious characteristics 430
CHAPTER III. — Writings.
§ I . Introduction 436
§ 2. Oratorical writings 436
§ 3. Letters and edicts 436
§ 4. Laws 440
§ 5. Various 440
CHAPTER IV. — The Mythical Constantine 441
CHAPTER V. — Sources and Literature.
§ I. Introduction 445
§ 2. Sources 445
§ 3. Literature 455
IT. SPECIAL PROLEGOMENA:
§ I . Life of Constantine 466
§ 2. Oration of Constantine 469
§ 3. Oration of Eusebius 469
III. EUSEBIUS: CONSTANTINE:
Table of Contents 473
Life of Constantine 48 1
Oration of Constantine 561
Oration of Eusebius 581
PROLEGOMENA.
I.-CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
CHAPTER I.
Life.
§ I. Early Yean.
The Emperor Flavius Valerius Constantinus, surnamed the Great/ born February 27, 272 or
274/^ at Naissus/ was son of Constantius Chlorus, afterwards Emperor/ and Helena his wife.'"'
He was brought up at Drepanum, his mother's home/ where he remained until his father became
1 This sketch of the life of Constantine is intended to give the
thread of events, and briefly to supplement, especially for the earlier
part of his reign, the life by Eusebius, which is distinctly confined
to his religious acts and life.
- " Imperator Ca;sar Augustus Consul Proconsul Pontifex Max-
imus, Magnus, Maximus, Pius, Felix, Fidelis, Mansuetus, Benificus,
Clementissimus, Victor, Invictus, Triumphator, Salus Reip. Beti-
cus, Alemanicus, Gothicus, .Sarmarticus, Germanicus, Britannicus,
Hunnicus, Gallicanus," is a portion of his title, as gathered from
coins, inscriptions, and various documents.
3 Calendarium Rom. in Pctavius Uranal. p. 113. The date
varies by a year or two, according to way of reckoning, but 274 is
the date usually given. (Cf. Burckhardt, Manso, Keim, De Broglie,
Wordsworth, etc.) Eutropius and Hieronymus say he died in his
sixty-sixth year, Theophanes says he was sixty-five years old, and
Socrates and Sozomen say substantially the same, while Victor,
Epit. has sixty-three, and Victor, Cces. sixty-two. Eusebius says
he lived twice the length of his reign, i.e. 63 -f .
Manso chose 274, because it agreed best with the representations
of the two Victors ar over against the " later church historians."
But the two Victors say, one that he lived sixty-two years and
reigned thirty-two, and the other that he lived sixty-three and reigned
thirty; while Eutropius, secretary to Constantine, gives length of
reign correctly, and so establishes a slight presumption in favor
of his other statement. Moreover, it is supported by Hieronymus,
whose testimony is not of the highest quality, to be sure, and is
quite likely taken from Eutropius, and Theophanes, who puts the
same fact in another form, and who certainly chose that figure for
a reason. The statement of Eusebius is a very elastic generaliza-
tion, and is the only support of Victor, Epit. Socrates, who, accord-
ing to Wordsworth, says he was in his sixty-fifth year, uses the
idiom " mounting upon " (eTrt^o.;) sixty-five years, which at the
least must mean nearly sixty-five years old, and unless there is some
well-established usage to the contrary, seems to mean having lived
already sixty-five years. In the interpretation of Sozomen (also
given in translation "in his sixty-fifth year") he was "about"
sixty-five years old. Now if he died in May, his following birthday
would not have been as " about," and he must have been a little
over sixty-five. This would make a strong consensus against Victor,
against whom Eutropius alone would have a presumption of accu-
racy. On the whole it may be said that in the evidence, so far as
cited by Manso, Wordsworth, Clinton, and the run of historians,
there is no critical justification for the choice of the later date and
the shorter life.
* Anon. Vales, p. 471. Const. Porphyr. {De themat. 2. 9),
Stephanus Byzant. art. Natuo-os (ed. 1502, H. ili.), " Firmicus i. 4."
According to some it was Tarsus ("Julius Firmic. i. 2"), or
Drepanum (Niceph. Callist.),or in Britain (the English chroniclers,
Voragine, and others, the mistake arising from one of the panegy-
rists (c. 4) speaking of his taking his origin thence), or Treves
(Voragine). Compare Vogt, who adds Rome (" Petr. de Natali-
bus"), or Roba (" Eutychius"), orGaul (" Meursius"). Compare
also monographs by Janus and by Schoepflin under Litera-
ture.
^ For characterization of Constantius compare V. C. i. 13 sq.
'' It has been a much discussed question, whether Helena was
legitimate wife or not. Some (Zosimus 2. 8; Niceph. Callist. 7. 18)
have asserted that Helena was a woman " indifferent honest," and
the birth of Constantine illegitimate. This view is simply psycho-
logically impossible regarding a woman of so much and such strength
of character. That she stood in the relation of legitimate concu-
binage (cf. Smith and Cheetham, Diet. i. 422) is not improbable,
since many (Hieron. Orosius, Zosimus 2. 8; Chron. Pasch. p. 516,
and others) assert this lesser relationship. This would have been
not unlike a modern morganatic marriage. The facts are: i. That
she is often spoken of as concubine (cf. above). 2. That she is
distinctly called wife, and that by some of the most competent
authorities (Eutrop. 10.2; Anon. Vales, p. 471; Euseb. H.E.Z.\y,
Ephraem p. 21, etc.), also in various inscriptions (compare collected
inscriptions in Clinton 2. 81). 3. That she was divorced (Anon.
Vales, p. 47). The weight of testimony is clearly in favor of the
word " wife," though with divorce so easy it seems to have been a
name only. The view that she was married in the full legal sense,
but only after the birth of Constantine, is plausible enough, and has
a support more apparent than real, in the fact that he " first estab-
lished that natural children should be made legitimate by the sub-
sequent marriage of their parents" (Sandars Inst. Just. (1865) 113;
cf. Cod. Just. V. xxvii. i and 5 ed. Krueger 2 (1877) 216).
Of course the story of her violation by and subsequent marriage
to Constantius (Inc. auct. ed. Heydenreich) is purely legendary,
and the same may be said of the somewhat circumstantial account
of her relation as concubine, given by Nicephorus Callistus 7,
18. For farther account of Helena, compare the V. C. 3. 42 and
notes.
' Helena was born probably at Drepanum, afterwards called
Helenopolis, in her honor, by Constantine (Procopius De cedij.
V. 2, p. 311, Chron. Pasch. etc.).
412
PROLEGOMENA.
Caesar (a.d. 292 ace. to Clinton) and divorced Helena (Anon. Vales, p. 471). He was then sent
to the court of Diocletian, nominally to be educated (Praxagoras, in Miiller, Fragm. 4 (1868) ;
Zonar. 13. i, &c.), but really as hostage/ and remained with Diocletian, or Galerius, until the
year 306.^ During this time he took part in various campaigns, including the famous Egyptian
expedition of Diocletian in 296 (Euseb. V. C. i. 19; Anon. Metroph., Theoph. p. 10).^
Shortly after joining the emperor he contracted (296 or 297) his alliance with Minervina,* by
whom he had a son, Crispus.^ He was at Nicomedia when Diocletian's palace was struck by
lightning (Const. Orat. 35), and was present at the abdication of Diocletian and Maximinus in 305
(Lact. De M. F. c. 18 sq.). This last event proved a crisis for Constantine. He had grown to
be a man of fine physique (Lact. c. 18 ; Euseb. V. C. i. 19), of proved courage and military skill
(cf. remarks on physical characteristics under Character), and a general favorite (Lact. I.e.). He
had already "long before" (Lact. c. 18) been created Tribune of the first order. It was both
natural and fitting that at this time he should become Caesar in the place of his father, who became
Augustus. Every one supposed he would be chosen (c. 19), and Diocletian urged it (c. 18), but
the princely youth was too able and illustrious to please Galerius, and Constantine was set aside for
obscure, and incompetent men (cf. Lact.). His position was far from easy before. His brilliant
parts naturally aroused the jealousy and suspicions of the emperors. They, or at least Galerius,
even sought his death, it is said, by tempting him to fight wild beasts (a lion, Praxag. p. 3 ; cf.
Zonaras 2, p. 623), or exposing him to special danger in battle (cf. Philistog. 1.6; Lact. c. 24 ;
Anon. Vales, p. 471 ; Theophanes p. 10-12, &c.). The situation, hard enough before, now became,
we may well believe, intolerable. He was humiliated, handicapped, and even in danger of his life.
He was practically a prisoner. The problem was, how to get away. Several times Constantius
asked that his son might be allowed to join him, but in vain (Lact. c. 24 ; Anon. Vales, p. 471).
Finally, however, Constantine gained a grudging permission to go. It was given at night, and
the emperor intended to take it back in the morning (Lact. c. 24). But in the morning it was
too late. Constantine had left at once to join his father. He lost no time either in starting or
making the journey. Each relay of post horses which he left was maimed to baffle pursuit
(Anon. Vales., Vict. Epit. p. 49 ; cf. Lact. c. 24, Praxag. p. 3). The rage of the emperor when he
learned of the flight was great but vain. Constantine was already out of reach, and soon joined
his father at Bononia (Boulogne, Anon. Vales.; cf. Eumen. Fancg. (310), c. 7),^ just in time to
accompany him on his final expeditions to Britain (Eumen. Faneg. (310) c. 7; cf. Anon. Vales.
I.e.). Constantius died shortly after at York (Anon. Vales, p. 471 ; Eutrop. 10. i), having named
Constantine as his successor (Euseb. V. C. i. 21 ; Eumen. Fancg. (310) c. 7.; Lact. c. 24).
' This appears from the disregard of his father's repeated requests
that he be sent back to him (Lact., Anon. Vales, p. 471), and the
whole story of his final flight. So also it is said by Anon. Vales.
J). 471, and the two Victors [^C<es. p. 156, Epit. p. 49). Zo-
naras (12. 33, ed. Migne logi), gives both reasons for sending,
and is likely right. Nicephorus Callistus (7. 18) suggests that he
was sent there for education, since Constantius could not take him
himself on account of Theodora.
- lie was with Diocletian still in 305 (cf. Lact. and note, below),
and was with his father early in 306.
^ Eusebius, who saw him on his way to Egypt in 296, gives the
impression which he made on him at that time (I.e.). According
to some he was also with Galerius in his Persian war, and this is
possible (cf Clinton i. 338-40). Theophanes describes him as
" already eminent in war" (p. 10), Anon. Vales, p. 471, as conduct-
ing himself " bravely."
* This was probably a morganatic marriage or concubinate
(Victor, Epit. 41, Zosimus 2. 20; Zonaras 13. 2, &c.). "The im-
probability thul Coiutaiilinc should have marked out an illegitimate
son as his successor " which Ramsay (Smith, Diet. 2. 1090) mentions
as the only argument against, is reduced to a minimum in view
of Constantine's law for the legitimization of natural children by
rescript (Cod. Just. V. xxvii. ed. Krueger 2 (1877), 216-17; cf-
notes of Sandars in his Inst. J/ist. (1865) 113). It would be un-
critical, as in the case before mentioned, to lay stress on this as
positive evidence, but over against a simple " improbability" it has
a certain suggestiveness at least. The panegyrical praises of Con-
stantine's continence hardly justify Clinton's claim that she was
lawful wife ; for to have a regular concubine would not have been
considered in any sen.se immoral, and it would not have been par-
ticularly pertinent in a wedding oration to have introduced even
a former wife. For what little is known of Minervina, compare
Ramsay, in Smith Diet. 2. 1090, " Tillemont, Hist. Evip. IV. iv.
p. 84," :ind Clinton, Fasti Rom. 2. (1850) 86, note k.
'' Crispus was " already a young man " when made Caesar in
317 (Zos. 2. 30).
" According to some (e.g. Victor, Cies. p. 156; Victor, Epit.
p. 51; Zos. 2. 8) his father was already in Britain.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
413
§ 2. The First Five Yeais of Reign.
The will of the father was promptly ratified by the soldiers, who at once proclaimed Constan-
tine Augustus.' Supported by them, and also by Erocus, king of the Allemanni (Vict. Fpit.
p. 49-50), he sent his portrait to Galerius, claiming the title of Augustus. This the emperor
refused to grant, but, much against his will, allowed him to have the title of Ccesar (Lact. c. 25).
Constantine did not insist on his right to the greater title, but waited his time, and in the interim
contented himself with the lesser, — as the coins show.- There was enough to do. After his
father's death he waged war against the Francs, and later against the Bnicteri and others (Eutrop.
10. 3; Patieg. (307) c. 4 ; Eumen. Paneg. (310) cc. 10-12; Nazar. Paneg. (321) 18; Euseb.
V. C. I. 25, &c. ; cf. Inscr. ap. Clinton 2. 93), and celebrated his victories by exposing his captives
to the wild beasts (Eutrop. 10. 3 ; Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 12 ; Paneg. (313) c. 23 ; cf. Nazar.
Paneg. (321) c. 16).
Meanwhile affairs were marching at Rome, too. The same year (306) that Constantine was
elected Augustus by the soldiers, Maxentius at Rome was proclaimed emperor by the Pretorian
Guards (Eutrop. 10. 2 ; Vict. Cces. p. 156 ; Anon. Vales, p. 472 ; Zos. 2. 9 ; Socr. 1.2; Oros. c. 26,
&c. ; Lact. c. 26). He persuaded the willing (Eutrop. 10. 2) Maximian to resume the imperial
purple (Lact. c. 26 ; Zos. 2. 10), but soon quarreled with him (Socr. i. 2 ; Eutrop. 10. 3 ; Zos. 2.
II ; Lact. c. 28).^ In 307 Constantine and Maximinus were named "sons of the emperors," and
the following year were reluctantly acknowledged as emperors by Galerius. Maximian, after he
had quarreled with his son, betook himself to Gaul and made alliance with Constantine by giving
his daughter Fausta in marriage (307). He proved an uncomfortable relative. The much-abused
mother-in-law of fiction is not to be compared with this choice father-in-law of history. First he
tried to supersede Constantine by corrupting his soldiers. At his persuasion Constantine had left
behind the bulk of his army while he made a campaign on the frontier. As soon as he was sup-
posably out of the way, the soldiers were won by largesses, and Maximian assumed the purple
again. But he had reckoned without his host. Constantine acted with decisive promptness,
returned by such rapid marches that he caught Maximian entirely unprepared (Lact. c. 29) and
drove him into Marseilles, where the latter cursed him vigorously from the walls (Lact. c. 29), but
was able to offer no more tangible resistance. The gates were thrown open (Lact. c. 29), and
Maximian was in the power of Constantine, who this time spared his precious father-in-law.*
Grateful for this mildness, Maximian then plotted to murder him. The plan was for Fausta to
leave her husband's door open and for Maximian to enter and kill Constantine with his own hands.
Fausta pretended to agree, but told her husband (Zos. 2. 11 ; Joh. Ant. p. 603 ; Oros. c. 28), who
put a slave in his o\vn place (but apparently did not "put himself in the place of" the slave),
had the program been carried out, and catching Maximian in the act, granted him that supreme
ancient mercy, — the right to choose how he would die (Lact. c. 30).*
Though in the midst of wars and plots, and liable at any time to have to run from one end of
his province to the other to put down some insurrection, Constantine kept steadily at the work of
internal improvement, organizing the interior, fortifying the boundaries, building bridges, restor-
' So Eusebius H. E. 8. 13; Lact. c. 25; Julian Orat. i. p. 13.
Eumenius {^Patteg. 310, c. 7) says that he was elected " imperator,"
but in cc. 8-g speaks of him as having become Caesar. Eutropius
(10. 2) also uses the word " imperator." Zosimus, on the other
hand (2. 9), and Anonymus Vales, say he was elected " Augustus,"
but was only confirmed " Caesar " by Galerius (see below) . The
elevation was in Britain (cf. Eutrop. 10. 2; Eumen. Paneg. (310)
c. 9; Soz. I. 5, &c.).
2 See coins in Eckhel 8, p. 72, under the year. It is also ex-
pressly stated by Paneg. (307) c. 5.
' It is said by many that the quarrel was a feigned one, and that
it was wholly for the purpose of getting rid of Constantine in behalf
of Maxentius that he betook himself to Gaul. That he went to
Gaul with this purpose, at least, is mentioned by many (cf Lact.
c. 29; Oros. c. 28; Eutrop. 10. 2, "on a planned stratagem"). It
seems curious, if he had attempted to supersede Maxentius by rais-
ing a mutiny (Eutrop. 10. 3), that he should now be working for
him and planning to rejoin him (Eutrop. 10. 2), but it is no incon-
sistency in this man, who was consistent only in his unceasing effort
to destroy others for his own advantage.
* Compare on all this Lact. c. 29; Eumen. Paneg c. 14.
" Socrates (i. 2) with many others (e.g. Zos. 2. 11) says he died
at Tarsus, confusing him thus with Maximinus.
414
PROLEGOMENA.
ing cities, building up educational institutions, &c.^ At the end of five years' reign (July 24,
311) he had reduced the turbulent tribes, organized his affairs, and endeared himself to his peo-
ple, especially to the Christians, whom he had favored from the first (Lact. c. 24), and who
could hardly fail in those days of persecution to rejoice in a policy such as is indicated in his letter
to Maximinus Daza in behalf of persecuted Christians (Lact. c. 37).
§ 3. State of Affairs in 311.
In the meantime, while the extreme west of the empire was enjoying the mild rule of Con-
stantine, the other corners of the now quadrangular and now hexagonal world, over which during
this time Maximinus, Galerius, Licinius, Maximian, and Maxentius had tried to reign, had had a
much less comfortable time. Every emperor wanted a corner to himself, and, having his corner,
wanted that of some one else or feared that some one else wanted his. \\\ order clearly to
understand Constantine, a glimpse of the state of affairs in these other parts of the empire, together
with some idea of the kind of men with whom he had to deal is essential, and may be gotten from
a brief view of (i) The rulers, (2) Characters of the rulers, (3) Condition of the ruled.
( 1 ) The Rulers.
The intricate process of evolution and devolution of emperors, mysterious to the uninitiated
as a Chinese puzzle, is briefly as follows : Li 305 Diocletian and Maximian had abdicated (Lact.
c. 18; Eutrop. 9. 27; Vict. Cces.^, Galerius and Constantius succeeding as Augusti and Severus,
Maximinus Daza succeeding them as C?esars (Lact. c, 19). \\\ 306 Constantius died, Constan-
tine was proclaimed Augustus by his army, Maxentius by the Pretorian Guards (cf. above), and
Severus by Galerius (Lact. c. 25), while Maximian resumed the purple (see above) — four
emperors, Galerius, Severus, Maximian, and Maxentius, with two Cffisars, Constantine and Max-
iminus, one with a pretty definite claim to the purple, and the other bound not to be left out in
the cold. Li 307 Licinius was appointed Augustus by Galerius (Lact. c. 29; Vict. Cccs.; Zos.
2. II ; Anon. Vales.; Eutrop. 10. 4), who also threw a sop to Cerberus by naming Constantine
and Maximin "sons of emperors" (Lact. c. 32 ; Coins in Eckhel 8 (1838) 52. 3). Constantine
was given title of Augustus by Maximianus (?), and Maximinus about this time was forced, as he
said, by his army to assume the title. Meantime the growing procession of emperors was reduced
by one. Severus, sent against Maxentius, was deserted by his soldiers, captured, and slain in
307 (Lact. c. 26; Zos. 2. 10; Anon. Vales. ; Eutrop. 10. 2; Vict. Cees. &c. &c.), leaving still
six emperors or claimants, — Galerius, Licinius, Maxentius, Maximian, Maximinus, and Constan-
tine. In 308, making the best of a bad matter, Galerius appointed Constantine and Maximin
Augusti (see above), leaving the situation unchanged, and so it remained until the death of
Maximian in 310 (see above), and of Galerius in May, 311 (Lact. c. 33 ; Vict. Cocs.; Vict. Epit. ;
Zos. 2. 11) reduced the number to four.
(2) Characters of the Rulers.
Constantine's own character has been hinted at and will be studied later. Severus was the
least significant of the others, having a brief reign and being little mentioned by historians. Dio-
cletian's characterization of him was, according to Lactantius (c. 18), as ejaculated to Galerius,
" That dancing, carousing drunkard who turns night into day and day into night." The average
character of the other emperors was that of the prisoners for life in our modern state prisons.
Galerius, " that pernicious wild beast" (Lact. c. 25), was uneducated, drunken (Anon. Vales.
p. 472), fond of boasting himself to be the illegitimate son of a dragon (Lact. 9; Vict. Epit.
p. 49), and sanguinary and ferocious to an extraordinary degree (Lact. c. 9. 21, 22, &c.).
Licinius, characterized by " ingratitude " and " cold-blooded ferocity," was " not only totally
' Notably at Autun. The city had been ahnost destroyed. Eii- on by his son. Constantine's work of internal improvement was in
menius, whose oration of thanks in behalf of the people of Autun is many ways distinctly a continuation of the work begun by Constan-
extant, praises Constantine as the restorer, almost the founder. The tins. Compare Eumen. Pancg. (especially c. 13, 22, &c.) and
work had been undertaken by Constantius, indeed, but was carried Grat. act.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 415
indifferent to human life and suffering, and regardless of any princijile of law or justice which
might interfere with the gratification of his passions, but he was systematically treacherous and
cruel, possessed of not one redeeming quality save physical courage and military skill" (Ramsay,
in Smith Diet. 2, p. 784 ; compare Euseb. H. E.\o.^; V. C. i. 49-56), and " in avaricious cupidity
worst of all" (Vict, Efit, p. 51). Maximinus' character " stands forth as pre-eminent for brutal
licentiousness and ferocious cruelty — ' lust hard by hate ' " (Pluniptre, in Smith & W. 3, p. 872),
and according to Lactantius, c. 38, " that which distinguished his character and in which he tran-
scended all former emperors was his desire of debauching women." He was cruel, superstitious,
gluttonous, rapacious, and " so addicted to intoxication that in his drunken frolics he was freciucntly
deranged and deprived of his reason like a madman " (Euseb. //. E. 8. 14). Maximianus has been
thought to be on the whole the least outrageous, and his somewhat defective moral sense
respecting treachery and murder has been noted (cf. above). He has been described as " thor-
oughly unprincipled . . . base and cruel" (Ramsay, in Smith Dicf. 2, p. 981). He is described
by Victor, i^Epit. p. 48) as " ferus natura, ardens libidine," being addicted to extraordinary and
unnatural lust (Lact. c. 8). Truly a choice "best " in this rogues' gallery. Of Maxentius it is
said (Tyrwhitt, in Smith & W. 3, p. 865) : " His wickedness seems to have transcended descrip-
tion, and to have been absolutely unredeemed by any saving feature." He " left no impurity or
licentiousness untouched" (Euseb. H. E. 8. 14; cf. Eutrop. 10. 4; Lact. 9). He was marked
by "impiety," "cruelty," "lust," and tyranny {Faneg. [313] c. 4). He was the most disrepu-
table of all, — unmitigatedly disreputable. With all due allowance for the prejudice of Christian
historians, from whom such strong statements are mainly drawn, yet enough of the details are
confirmed by Victor, Epit., the Panegyrists, Eutropius, and other non-Christian writers to verify
the substantial facts of the ferocity, drunkenness, lust, covetousness, and oppression of this precious
galaxy of rulers.
(3) Condition of the Ruled.
Under such rulers there was a reign of terror during this period which contrasted strangely
with the state of things under Constantine. Galerius was " driving the empire wild with his taxa-
tions " (cf. Lact. c. 23 and 26), affording in this also a marked contrast with the course of Con-
stantine in Gaul. Maxentius led in the unbridled exercise of passion (Euseb. H. E. 8. 14; cf.
Lact. c. 18), but in this he differed from the others little except in degree (compare Euseb.
V. C. I. 55 on Licinius), and according to Lactantius (c. 28) he was surpassed by Maximin.
In brief, all did according to their own sweet wills, and the people had to stand it as best they
could. The worst was that the oppression did not end with the emperors nor the friends and
officials to whom they delegated power to satisfy their desires at the expense of the helpless.
Their armies were necessary to them. The soldiers had to be conciliated and exactions made
to meet their demands. They followed the examples of their royal leaders in all manner of
excesses and oppressions. No property or life or honor was safe.
The persecution of the Christians reached a climax of horror in this period. The beginning
of the tenth persecution was, to be sure, a little before this (303), but its main terror was in this
time. Galerius and Maximian are said indeed to have persecuted less during this period, and
Maxentius not at all ; but Galerius was the real author and sanguinary promoter of the persecution
which is ascribed to Diocletian (Lact. c. 11), while Maximian was, in 304, the author of the
celebrated " Fourth Edict " which made death the penalty of Christianity, and Maxentius was
only better because impartial — he persecuted both Christian and heathen (Euseb. V. C. i.
33-6; H. E. 8. 14; Eutrop. 10. 4).^ The persecution under Maximin was of peculiar atrocity
(Euseb. H. E. S. 17 ; 9. 6, &c, ; Lact. c. 26-27), so that the whole of this period in the East,
excepting a slight breathing space in 308, was a terror to Christians, and it is said that " these
two years were the most prolific of bloodshed of any in the whole history of Roman persecu-
' " Raging against the nobles with every kind of destruction," Eutrop. lo. 4.
4i6
PROLEGOMENA.
tions" (Marriott, in Smith & W. 2, p, 594). It was not until the very end of this period^ that
Galerius, in terror of death, issued the famous first edict of toleration.- Such was the condition
of things in July, 311. The deaths of Severus in 307, Maximian in 310, and Galerius in 311, had
cleared the stage so far as to leave but four Augusti, Licinius and Maximin in the East, Constantine
and Maxentius in the West. The only well-ordered and contented section of the world was that
of Constantine. In all the others there was oppression, excess, and discontent, the state of things
at Rome being on the whole the most outrageous.
§ 4. Second Five Years.
This period was most momentous for the world's history. Maxentius, seeking an excuse for
war against Constantine, found it in a pretended desire to avenge his father (Zos. 2. 14), and pre-
pared for war.^ Like his father before him, however, he did not know his man. Constantine's
mind was prepared. He was alert and ready to act. He gathered all the forces, German, Gallic,
and British (Zos. 2. 15) that he could muster, left a portion for the protection of the Rhine,
entered Italy by way of the Alps {Fa?ieg.), and marched to meet the much more numerous
forces of Maxentius, — Romans, Italians, Tuscans, Carthagenians, and Sicilians (Zos. 2. is).*
First Sigusium was taken by storm (Naz. Pajieg. [321] c. 17 and 21 ; Paneg. [313] c 5) ; then
the cavalry of Maxentius was defeated at Turin (Naz. Paneg. [321] c. 22 ; Paneg. [313] c 6).
After a few days' rest in Milan {Pa?ieg. [313] c 7) he continued his triumphant march, defeating
the enemy again in a cavalry engagement at Brescia (Naz. Paneg. c. 25), and taking the strongly
fortified Verona after a hard- fought battle before the walls (Anon. Vales, p. 473 ; Patieg. [313] ;
Naz. Paneg. c. 25-26). This had taken him out of his way a little; but now there were no
enemies in the rear, and he was free to push on to Rome, on his way whither, if not earlier, he
had his famous vision of the cross.^ He reached the Tiber October 26. Maxentius, tempted by
a dubious oracle" issued from Rome, crossed the Tiber, and joined battle. His apparently unwise
action in staking so much on a pitched battle has its explanation, if we could believe Zosimus
(2. 15), Eusebius (F. C. i. 38), Praxagoras, and others. His object was, it is said, by a feigned
retreat to tempt Constantine across the bridge of boats which he had built in such a way that it
could be broken, and the enemy let into the river.^ If it was a trick, he at least fell into his own
pit. The dissipated soldiers of Maxentius gave way before the hardy followers of Constantine,
fired by his own energy and the sight of the cross. The defeat was a rout. The bridge broke.
Maxentius, caught in the jam, was cast headlong into the river (Anon. Val. p. 473 ; Lact. c. 44 ;
Chron. Pasch. p. 521, &c.) ; and after a vain attempt to climb out on the steep bank opposite
{Paneg. [313] c. 17), was swept away by the stream. The next day his body was found, the
head cut off (Praxag. ; Anon. Vales, p. 473), and carried into the city (Anon. Vales, p. 473) on
the point of a spear {Paneg. [313] c. 18 ; Zos. 2. 17 ; Praxag. p. i). Constantine entered the city
1 Edict of toleration was April 30; Constantine's anniversary,
July 24.
' This edict was signed by Constantine and Licinius as well as
by Galerius. The Latin text is found in Lactantius, de tnort./>ers.
c. 24, and the Greek translation in Eusebius, H. E. 8. 17.
' Eusebius represents the occasion of Constantine's movement
as a philanthropic compassion for the people of Rome {V. C. 1. 26;
//.Ji.q.g).
Praxagoras (ed. Miiller, p. i) says distinctly that it was to
avenge those who suffered under the tyrannical rule of Maxentius
and Nazarius {Paueg. c. 19), that it was "for liberating Italy."
So, too, Nazarius {Paneg. [321] c. 27), Zonaras (13. i), Cedrenus,
and Ephraem (p. 22) speak of a legation of the Romans petitioning
him to go.
Undoubtedly he did pity them, and as to the legation, every
Roman who found his way to Treves must have been an informal
ambassador asking help. The fact seems to be that he had long
suspected Maxentius (Zos. 2. 15), and now, learning of his prepara-
tions for war, saw that his suspicions were well grounded. What-
ever underlying motive of personal ambition there may have been,
it is probable that the philanthropic motive was his justification and
pretext to his own conscience for the attempt to rid himself of this
suspected and dangerous neighbor. Zosimus being Zosimus, it is
probable that Maxentius was the aggressor if he says so.
* Constantine numbered, according to Zosimus, 90,000 foot,
8,000 horse; and Maxentius, 170,000 foot, and 18,000 horse. Accord-
ing to Pancgyr. (313) c. 3, he left the major part of his army to
guard the Rhine and went to meet a force of 100,000 men with less
than 40,000 (c. s).
'' See note on Bk. L c. 28.
« That " on the same day the enemy of the Romans should
perish " (Lact. c. 44).
' The circumstance pronounced by Wordsworth " almost incred-
ible "is witnessed to by Eusebius ( T'. C. i. 38), Zosimus (2. 15),
Praxagoras (ed. Miiller, p. i). The bridge certainly broke as
mentioned by Lactantius (c. 44) and as represented on the tri-
umphal arch, but whether the "plot" was an ex post facto notion
ur not is unclear.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
417
in triumph amid rejoicings of the people,^ exacted penalties from a few of those most intimate
with Maxentius (Zos. 2. 17),- disbanded the Praetorian Guards (Vict. Cccs. p, 159; Zos. 2. 17),
raised a statue to himself, and did many other things which are recorded ; and if he did as many
things which are not recorded as there are recorded things which he did not do, he must have
been very busy in the short time he remained there.^
Constantine was now sole emperor in the West, and the emperors were reduced to three.
History was making fost. After a very brief stay in Rome he returned to Milan (Lact. c. 45),
where Licinius met him (Anon. Vales, p. 473; Lact. c. 25 ; Vict. Epii. p. 50; Zos. 2. 17, &c.).
It had become of mutual advantage to these emperors to join alliance. So a betrothal had been
made, and now the marriage of Licinius to the sister of Constantine was celebrated (cf. refs.
above Lact. ; Vict. ; Zos. ; Anon. Vales.). At the same time the famous Second Edict or Edict
of Milan was drawn up by the two emperors (Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 ; Lact. c. 48), and probably
proclaimed.* Constantine then returned to Gaul (Anon. Vales, p. 473; Zos. 11. 17), where he
was forced into another sort of strenuous warfare — the ecclesiastical, taking a hand somewhat
against his will in trying to settle the famous Donatist schism.^
Licinius had a more critical problem to meet. Maximin thought it a good time to strike
while Licinius was off in Milan engaged in festivities (Lact. c. 45) ; but the latter, hastily gather-
ing his troops and pushing on by forced marches, met near Heraclea and utterly defeated him
(Lact. c. 46). Maximin fled precipitately, escaping the sword only to die a more terrible death
that same summer (Lact. c. 49; Euseb. V. C. i. 58; cf. Zos. 2. 17).^ The death of Maximin
cleared the field still farther. Through progressive subtractions the number of emperors had now
been reduced to two, — one in the East and one in the West.
They, too, promptly fell out. The next year they were at war. Causes and pretexts were
various ; but the pretext, if not the cause, was in general that Licinius proved an accomplice after
the fact, at least, to a plot against Constantine.^ Whatever the immediate cause, it was one of
1 " Senate and people rejoiced with incredible rejoicing " (Vict.
Cas. p. 159). Cf. Euseb. V. C. i. 39; Pa>ieg. [313] c. 19; Naz.
Paneg. c. 30; Chron. Pasch. p. 521, &c.
2 It is said he put to death Romulus, son of Maxentius, but it
lacks evidence, and the fact that Romulus was consul for two years
{208-9) w'''^ Maxentius, and then Maxentius appears alone, seems
to indicate that he died in 209 or 210 (cf. Clinton, under the years
208 and 209) .
' For the churches he is said to have founded, compare note on
Bk. I. ch. 42.
The curious patchwork triumphal arch which still stands in a
state of respectable dilapidation near the Coliseum at Rome, was
erected in honor of this victory. It is to be hoped that it was erected
after Constantine had gone, and that his aesthetic character is not to
be charged with this crime. It was an arch to Trajan made over for
the occasion, — by itself and piecemeal of great interest. Apart
from the mutilation made for the glory of Constantine, it is a noble
piece of work. The changes made were artistic disfigurements ; but
art's loss is science's gain, and for the historian it is most interesting.
The phrase " instinctu divinitatis " has its value in the " Hoc
signo" discussion (cf. notes to the V. C); and the sculptures are
most suggestive.
* It has been maintained that there were three edicts of Constan-
tine up to this time: i. Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius in 311;
2. Constantine and Licinius in 312 (lost) ; 3. Constantine and Li-
cinius in 313 (cf. Keim, p. 16 and 81-84; Zahn, p. 33). So Gass in
Herzog, p. 201, Wordsworth {Ch. Hist.), and others. But, like most
certain things, it seems to have been disproved. The " harder edict "
seems to have been a product of Eusebius' rather slovenly historical
method, and to refer to the first, or Galerian edict.
'■ The appeal of the Donatists to Constantine was first met by the
appointment of a "court of enquiry," held at Rome, Oct. 2, 313.
The result was unsatisfactory, and Constantine ordered an examina-
tion on the spot, which took place at Carthage, Feb. 15, 314 (Phil-
VOL. I. E
lott). The Donatists still urging, the Council of Aries was called,
Aug. I, 314, and some progress seemed to be made, but progress
more satisfactory to the orthodox than to the schismatics, who urged
again that Constantine hear the matter himself, as he finally did, No-
vember, 316 (Wordsworth; cf. Augustine, E/>. 43, IT zo). He con-
firmed the previous findings, and took vigorous but ineffective meas-
ures to suppress the Donatists, measures which he saw afterwards
could not be carried out, and perhaps saw to be unjust. Compare
Augustine, Ep. 43, ch. 2, and elsewhere, also various documents
from Augustine, Lactantius, Eusebius, Optatus, &c., collected in
Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 673-784. Compare also Fuller,
Donatisvt, Phillott, Felix, — articles in Smith and W . Diet. Sec;
and for general sources and literature, cf. Donatist Schism, Har-
tranft, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicctte Fathers, 4 (1887), 369-
72; Volter, Ursprungdes Donatistniis, 1883; and Seeck in Brieger's
Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, 10 (1889), 505-508.
" According to Lactantius (c. 49) , an attempt at suicide by poi-
son was followed by a wretched disease, bringing to a lingering and
most painful death.
' Bassianus, who had married Anastasia, sister of Constantine,
was incited by his brother, who was an adherent of Licinius, to
revolt against Constantine. The attempt was nipped in the bud,
and Constantine demanded from Licinius the author of the plot.
His refusal, together with the throwing down of the statues of Con-
stantine, was the direct occasion of the war (Anon. Vales, p. 473).
Compare Eusebius, V. C. i. 50-51, and Socr. i. 3, where Licinius is
charged with repeated treachery, perjury, and hypocrisy. Zosimus,
on the other hand (2. 18), distinctly says that Licinius was not to
blame, but that Constantine, with characteristic faithlessness to their
agreement, tried to alienate some of Licinius' provinces. Here,
however, notice that Zosimus would not count any movement in be-
half 0/ Christians as a proper motive, and sympathy for them was
undoubtedly one of the underlying reasons.
4i8
PROLEGOMENA.
the inevitabilities of fate. Another vigorous campaign followed, characterized by the same deci-
sive action and personal courage on the part of Constantine which he had already shown, and
which supplied his lack of soldiers.^ First at Cibalis in Pannonia (Oct. 8),^ then in a desperate
battle at Mardia, Licinius was defeated and forced to make peace (Anon. Vales, p. 474; Zos.
2. 19-20). The world was re-divided between the affectionate brothers-in-law, and Constantine
took Illyrium to his other possessions.^ After this battle and the re-division there was a truce
between the emperors for some years, during the early part of which (in 316 or 315) the Decen-
nalia of Constantine were celebrated (Euseb. V. C. i. 48).
§ 5. Third Five Years.
About the time of his decennial celebration,'' his sons Crispus and Constantine, and Licinius,
son of Licinius, were made Caesars. The pea?e between the emperors continued during the
whole of this period. There was more or less fighting with the frontier tribes, Crispus, e.g.,
defeating the Franks in 320 (Naz. Paneg. c. 3. 17?), but the main interest of the period does
not lie in its wars. It was a period of legislation and internal improvement (cf. Laws of
319, 320, 321, collected in Clinton, i, p. 9; also De Broglie, L i, 296-97). Early in the
period he was at Milan, where the Donatist matter, which had been dragging along since 311,
came up for final settlement (cf. note, above) . He was also at one time or another at Aries and
at Rome, but the latter and greater part of the period was spent mainly in Dacia and Pannonia
(cf. Laws, as above). The close of his fifteen years was celebrated somewhat prematurely at
Rome, in the absence of Constantine, by the oration of Nazarius (cf. Naz. Paneg.).
§ 6. Fourth Five Years.
If the third period was relatively quiet, the fourth was absolutely stirring. There had undoubt-
edly been more or less fighting along the Danube frontier during the preceding years, but early
in this period there was a most important campaign against the Sarmatians, in which they were
defeated and their king taken prisoner.'^ In honor of this victory coins were struck (Eckhel,
Doct. Num. Vet. 8 (1827) 87). But this was only skirmishing; afterwards came the tug of war.
Nine years of peace proved the utmost limit of mutual patience, and Constantine and Licinius
came to words, and from words to blows. For a long time Constantine had been vexed at the
persecution of the Christians by Licinius (cf. Euseb. H. E. 10. 8, 9), persecutions waged perhaps
with the express purpose of aggravating him.'' Licinius, on the other hand, naturally chagrined
over the previous loss of territory, knowing of Constantine's indignation over his persecutions, and
perhaps suspecting him of further designs, was naturally suspicious when Constantine passed
within his boundaries in pursuing the Sarmatians (Anon. Vales, p. 474). Mutual recriminations
and aggravations followed. Licinius would not let the Sarmatian coins pass current and had them
melted down (Anon. Contin. Dio. Cass., in MnWer, Fragm. Hist. Gr. 4 [1868] 199). Altogether
they soon came to blows. The steps were short, sharp, decisive. Constantine defeated Licinius
by land (July 3, 323), and through Crispus, by sea (Soz. i. 7; Anon. Vales, p. 474-5; Zos.
2. 22-3). After the defeat at Adrianople, Licinius retreated to Byzantium (Zos. 2. 23-5 ; Vict.
' Constantine at Cibalis had 20,000, Licinius 35,000 (Anon.
Vales, p. 473).
' Zos. 2. 18; " by a sudden attack " (Eutrop. 10. 4) ; " by night "
(Vict. Epit. p. 50). Cf. Orosius, c. 28.
' After the battle of Cibalis the Greeks and the Macedonians, the
inhabitants of the banks of the Danube, of Achaia, and the whole
nation of lUyrica became subject to Constantine (Soz. 1.6; cf. Anon.
Vales, p. 474; Zos. 2. 20; Oros. c. 28, &c.).
* Perhaps earlier and perhaps later. It is generally placed in
317 (cf. Clinton, p. 370).
'' Zos. 2. 21. An exhaustive discussion of this is that by Bessell,
Gothtn, in Ersch u. Gruber, Encykl. I. 75 (Leipz. 1862), 132-33.
The same article (p. 133-35) discusses various relations of Goths
and Sarmatians with Constantine.
" According to Sozomen, Licinius withdrew his favor from Chris-
ti.ins and persecuted them, because " He was deeply incensed
against the Christians on account of his disagreement with Constan-
tine, and thought to wound him by their sufferings; and, besides, he
suspected that they earnestly desired that Constantine should enjoy
the sovereign rule" (i. 7). In this view of the case, it is easy to
see how and why affairs marched as they did. Eusebius (//. E.
TO. 9) makes this, like the war against Maxentius, a real crusade in
behalf of the persecuted Christians.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 419
Epit. p. 50), and then to Chalcedon (Anon. Vales, p. 475 ; Zos. 2. 25-6). Two months after
the first victory (Sept. 18) a final and decisive battle was fought at ChrysopoHs^ (Anon. Vales,
p. 475 ; Socr. I. 4). Licinius surrendered on condition that his life should be spared (Zos. 2.
28), or rather Constantia secured from her brother the promise that his life should be spared
(Anon. Vales, p. 475 ; Vict. Epit. p. 50; Pseudo-Leo, p. 85, &c.). He retired to Nicomedia,
residing at Thessalonica (Soz. 1.7; Pseudo-Leo, &c.), but was put to death the following year.^
Constantine was now sole emperor. His first act (Soz. i. 8) was to issue a proclamation in
favor of the Christians (Soz. I.e. ; V. C. 2. 24- , and 48- ). This was followed by many other
acts in their favor, — building of churches, &c. (cf. Euseb. V. C, and notes). From this time
on he was much identified with Christian affairs, and the main events are given in cxtenso by
Eusebius (see various notes). In 325 (June 19-Aug. 25) the Council of Nicgea was held (cf.
Euseb. V. C. 3. 6, and notes), and Constantine took an active part in its proceedings. The
same year his Vicennalia were celebrated at Nicomedia (Euseb. V. C i. i ; Hieron. ; Cassiod.)
and the following year at Rome also (Hieron., Cassiod., Prosper., Idat.), Constantine being
present at both celebrations,^ being thus at Rome in July, and passing during the year as far as
Aries, apparently spending some time at Milan (cf the various laws in Clinton, v. 2, p. 92).
§ 7. Eifth Eive Years.
The beginning of this period was the beginning of the series of acts which have taken most
from the reputation of Constantine. Sometime in 326, perhaps while at Rome, he ordered the
death of his son Crispus.* The same year (Hieron. Chron.) the Csesar Licinius, his sister's son,
was put to death (Eutrop. 10. 6 ; Hieron. ; Prosper.), and shortly after ^ his wife Fausta died or
was put to death.^ But apart from this shadow, the period was hardly less brilliant, in its way,
than preceding ones. It was a time of gigantic and, as some said, extravagant internal improve-
ments. Among various enterprises was the refounding, in 327, of Drepanum, his mother's city,
as Helenopolis (Hieron. An. 2343; Chrori. Paseh. p. 283(7); Socr. H. E. i. 18; Soz. 2. 2;
Theoph. p. 41), and greatest of all, the transformation of the insignificant Byzantium into the
magnificent Constantinople,^ which was dedicated in 330 (Idatius ; Chron. Paseh. p. 285 ;
Hesych. § 42 ; Hieron. ; cf. Clinton).^ It was probably during this period, too, that the work
of improvement in Jerusalem was undertaken, and Helena made her famous visit thither (Euseb.
V. C. 3. 42 ; Soz. 21 j Socr. i. 17 ; Ephraem. p. 24 : Theoph. 37-8, &c.).
§ 8. Sixth Eive Years.
The main event of the last full five-year period of this reign was the Gothic war (Hieron. An.
2347; Idat.; Oros. c. 28; Anon. Vales, p. 476; Eutrop. 10. 7; Vict. C^j. p. 352 ; cf. Soz.
I. 26), undertaken in behalf of the Sarmatians (Anon. Vales, /.r.), carried on by Constantine II.,
and brought to an end April 20, 332 (cf. Clinton). The following year (333) Constans was
1 According to Zos. 2. 27, the final siege and surrender was at
Nicomedia.
- Compare note on Bk. II. ch. 18.
s For his presence at Rome at this time, compare authorities
above, and also law dated July, 326, given in Clinton (p. 380).
* Crispus was alive and in power March i, 326, as appears from
coins (cf. Eckhel, 8, p. 101-2). Whether he was put to death before
the Vicennalia does not appear, but that he was is not probable.
For death of Crispus and its date, compare Zos. 2. 29; Vict. Cces.;
Soz. I. 3; Vict. E/iit. p. 50; Chron. Paseh.; Eutrop. 10. 6, &c.,
and discussion under Character.
^ The same year according to Greg. Tur. (i. 34). Cf. Eutrop. and
Sidon. 327, and even 328, is the date given by some (cf. Clinton,
V. I, p. 382, and Wordsworth).
" Disputed, but generally allowed. On this series of deaths,
compare the somewhat opposite views of Gorres and Seeck in the
articles mentioned under Literature for latest views.
' The date of the beginning of the work is curiously uncertain.
Socrates (i. 6) puts it directly after the Council of Nicaea, and Phi-
lostorgius in 334, while there is almost equal variety among the mod-
ern historians. Burckhardt says Nov. 4, 326; De Broglie, 328 or
329; Wordsworth as early as 325. It is possible that the strangeness
which he felt in visiting Rome in 326, and the hostility with which
he was met there (Zos. 2. 29, 30), may have been a moving cause in
the foundation of this " New Rome," and that it was begun soon
after his visit there. He first began to build his capital near the site
of Ilium (Soz. 2. 3; Zos. 2. 30), but "led by the hand of God"
(Soz.), he changed his plan to that city whose site he so much
admired (Soz.).
8 For accounts of the founding of Constantinople, see Soz. 2. 3;
Philostorgius, 2. 9; Malalas, 13. 5; Glycas, p. 462-64; Cedrenus,
p. 495-98; Theoph. 41-42. Compare Zosimus, 2. 30; Anon. Vales.
P- 475"?'^: Socrates, i. 16; Orosius, c. 28; Praxagoras, Zononas,
Codinus, Nicephoras Callistus, &c.
E e 2
420 PROLEGOMENA.
made consul (Idat. ; Hieron. ; Prosper has 332 ; cf. Zos. 2. 35 ; Vict. Cces. p. 161, &c.), and in
334 the remarkable (Anon. Vales.) incorporation of 300,000 Sarmatians into the empire (Anon.
Vales, p. 476; Idat.; Hieron.; cf. Ammian. 17. 12, 18; 17. 13; 19. 12; V. C. 4. 6). This
same year Calocgerus revolted in Crete and was defeated (Anon. Vales, p. 476 ; Vict. C^ss. p. 161 ;
Oros. c. 28; Hieron.). The following year (335) Constantine celebrated his tricennalia, and
Dalmatius was made Csesar (Idat.; Hieron. An. 340; Vict. Ciss. p. 161 ; Anon. Vales, p. 476;
Chron. Pasch. p. 532 ; Vict. £pi^. p. 51 ; Oros. c. 28), making now four Caesars and a nonde-
script (cf. Anon. Vales, p. 476), — Constantine II., Constantius, Constans, Dalmatius, and Han-
nibalianus, among whom the world was now partitioned (Anon. Vales, p. 476 ; Zos. 2. 39 ;
Vict. -Epif. p. 52).
§ 9. Zasf Years.
Later in this year, Constantine is known to have been at Jerusalem, where he dedicated a
church ( V. C. 4. 40 ; Chron. Pasch., but wrong year) . It was also the year of the Synods of
Tyre (Athanas. c. Ar. i. p. 788; V. C.4.41 ; Theod. i. 28). The same year, or early in the
following one, Eusebius pronounced his tricennial oration (see Special Frokgof/iena). In 337
the Great Emperor died at Ancyrona, near Nicomedia, just as he Avas preparing for an expedition
against the Persians, and was buried in the Church of the Apostles, at Constantinople (cf. notes
on Eusebius' Life of Constantine).^
CHAPTER II.
Character.
§ I. Introduction.
A man's character consists of an inherited personality enlarged, modified, or disfigured by his
own repeated voluntary acts. A sufficiently exhaustive survey of such character may be made
under the rubrics of : i. Inherited characteristics. 2. Physical characteristics. 3. Mental char-
acteristics. 4. Moral characteristics. 5. Religious characteristics.
The character of Constantine has been so endlessly treated, with such utter lack of agree-
ment, that it seems hopeless to try to reach any clear results in a study of it. " ^Vho shall decide
when doctors disagree?" "How shall I go about it to find what sort of a man Constantine
really was?" Certainly nothing can be gained by that method which chooses a few acts or char-
acteristics to which shifting tests of various philosophies are applied. Nor can any haphazard
selection and stringing together of traits give what is by its nature a synthesis of them all. Like
any other scientific study, the first condition of method is that it be systematic. Then, a char-
acter generalization is worth just so much, no more, as the grounds on which it is based. To
get a man's character from secondary sources, from other men's generalizations, is a hopelessly
will-of-the-wisp effort. Again, another vice of characterization as usually practised is the inter-
pretation of the whole by a part rather than the part by the whole. The individual act is thus
made the standard of character. To get at what this personality called Constantine was there-
fore requires a systematic survey of the primary sources with a view to getting the cjisemblc that
the eccentric may be judged by the normal. In such survey the main thing is the body of ana-
lyzed and grouped facts. The editor's summary, like any summary, is worth only what the facts
are worth. This method, however imperfectly carried out, is at least better than rambling
observations of incoherent phenomena ; and has therefore been adopted in this attempt to find
out what sort of a man this Constantine was ; Physically, Mentally, Morally, Spiritually.
• The events and dales of these later periods have to do mainly I to which Eusebius devotes his attention so fully, — and are treated
with theological matters, — the " religious" activity of Constantine, I in the /'. C,
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
42 i
§ 2. Inhcrilcd Characieristics.
The fact of the inheritance of character, virtues or vices as the case may be, curiously recog-
nized in various nations and ancient philosophies (cf. Ribot. Heredity, N.Y. 1875, P- 375"^)'
and even in the ten commandments, has received the clearer exposition of modern science. In
view of it, a scientific study of character considers antecedent generations. Biography rests
properly on genealogy. Coustantine's fether, Constantius Chlorus, was a man of great mildness,
self-possession, and philosophic virtue, just, and a Neo-Platonist of the best type, a monotheist
and philanthropist (cf. Sinclair, in Smith & W. i. 661-2). Constantine is said to have in-
herited his father's strength, courage, personal appearance (Eumen, Pa?ieg. c. 4), piety (Pseud.-
Leo, p. S3 ; cf. Const, and Euseb. in V. C. 2. 49), and general virtues. The slur of Zosimus
on the character of Coustantine's mother seems to have been quite gratuitous. Her relation to
Constantius was in nowise incompatible with virtue, and the honor afterwards paid her, along
with the indisputable good early training of Constantine which was with her, indicate a woman
of unusual character. The later enterprise and activity with the honors and responsibilities given
her show her to have been of very considerable energy and ability.
§ 3. Physical Characieristics.
A graphic picture of his personal appearance is drawn by Cedrenus (p. 472-3). " Constan-
tinus Magnus was of medium height, broad-shouldered, thick-necked, whence his epithet Bull-
necked. His complexion was ruddy, his hair neither thick nor crisp curling, his beard scanty
and not growing in many places, his nose slightly hooked, and his eyes like the eyes of a lion.
He was joyous of heart and most cheery of countenance." ^ Many points in this description are
confirmed by others, some apparently contradicted. Taken in detail, his Height was probably
above medium. Over against this statement of Cedrenus (p. 472) that he was of middle height
is that of the earlier Malalas (13. i), who, while confirming the ruddiness of complexion, charac-
terizes him as tall, and the explicit testimony of Eusebius, that among those with Diocletian
"there was no one comparable with him for height" {V. C. i. 19), and Hkewise among those
present at Nicsea ( V. C. 3. 10). But a " thick-necked " form hardly belongs to the strictly " tall "
man, and a thick neck and broad shoulders would hardly belong to a form of " distinguished
comeliness," if it were short (Lact. c. 18), It may be supposed therefore that he can be described
as above medium height. Moreover, there would naturally have been more mention of height by
Lactantius and Panegyrists if it had been very extraordinary. In respect of Countenance he was
undoubtedly handsome. The "majestic beauty of his face " mentioned by Theophanes (p. 29 ;
cf. V. C. I. ig ; 3. 10) is confirmed by suggestions in the Panegyrists (e.g. Eumen. c. 17 ; Naz.
c. 24), and all general testimony, and not belied by the coins. His Complexion was ruddy;
"reddish" in the expression of Cedrenus (p. 272), "fiery" in that of Malalas (13. i). His
Hair, rather thin and straight, scanty Beard, and " slightly hooked " Nose are shown also by the
coins, where the nose varies from a pronounced Roman or ungraceful eagle's beak to a very pro-
portionate, slighdy aquiline member. His Eyes were lion-like (Cedren.), piercingly bright (Paneg.
313, c. 19; also Eumen.). His Expression was bright and joyous (Cedren.), characterized by
"noble gravity mingled with hilarity" (Naz. Paneg. c. 24), by "serenity" and "cheerfulness " (cf,
Euseb. V. C. 3. 11). In brief, he seems to have been a type of the sanguine temperament.
Added to his beauty of face was an unquestioned beauty of form. His distinguished comeli-
ness oi Figure (Lact. c. 18) is a favorite theme with his enthusiastic friend Eusebius, who says,
" No one was comparable with him for grace and beauty of person " (cf. Eumen. c 17 ; V. C. i.
* Cf. Vict. £p!i. p. 51, where "bull-necked" is rendered as
equal to " scoffer," " such according to physiognomical writers being
the character of stout men," Liddell and Scott, Le.r. p. 1569. But
the very proverb on which Victor bases this interpretation would
seem to make it refer to energy and obstinate force of character,
which is altogether better fitting the word and the physiognomical
characteristic.
422 PROLEGOMENA.
19; 3. 10), and that his figure was "manly and vigorous" (i. 20). The broad Shoulders and
thick Neck prepare one for the testimony to his great bodily Strength. The feats of personal
valor in combat with the Sarmatian champions and the wild beasts (cf. above), his personal
energy in battle (e.g. before Verona ; cf. above), much special testimony (e.g. Eumen. Paneg. c. 4)
and all the general testimony, show that the superlative language of Eusebius is well grounded,
and interpreted with conservative imagination is to be taken as fact. According to him, " he so
far surpassed his compeers in personal strength as to be a terror to them" (K C. i. 19), and in
respect of Vigor of body was such that at the Council of Nicaea his very bearing showed that he
surpassed all present in " invincible strength and vigor" ; while at the age of sixty or upwards, " he
still possessed a sound and vigorous body, free from all blemish and of more than youthful
vivacity; a noble mien and strength equal to any exertion, so that he was able to join in martial
exercises, to ride, endure the fatigues of travel, engage in battle," &c. (Vict. 4. 53). In Bearing
he was "manly" ( F. C. i. 20), self-possessed, calm ( F. C. 3. 11), dignified ("noble gravity,"
Naz. c. 24 ; cf. Eumen. &c.), with " majestic dignity of mien " ( V. C. 3. 10) and serenity ( V. C.
3. 10). In Manners he was "suave" {ItntiK-q-i) (V. C. 3. 10) and "affable to all" {V. C. 3.
13). This singular affability was such, according to Lactantius (c. iS), as to endear him greatly
to his soldiers. Over against this, however, must be set the statement of Victor, Epit. that he
was "a scoffer \irrisor~\ rather than suave \J)landiis^ " {yxz'i. Epit. 51). But this seems founded
on a false exegesis (cf. above) and withal there is no absolute contradiction. Moreover, all his
intercourse with bishops, deputies, soldiers, citizens, barbarians, seems to have generally made a
favorable impression, and such success without affability of manner would have been marvelous.
In Dress his taste, late in life at least, became somewhat gorgeous. If he were reigning to-day,
the comic papers would undoubtedly represent him, like some other good and great men, with
exaggerated red neckties and figured waistcoats. He " always wore a diadem," according to
Victor, Epit. (p. 51), and according to many (Malal. 13. 7-8; Cedren. ; Pseudo-Leo, &c.)
" none of the emperors before him " wore the diadem at all. Eusebius' description of his appear-
ance at the Council of Nicrea would do credit to a Washington reporter on wedding- toilets ; he
was " clothed in raiment which glittered, as it were, with rays of light, reflecting the glowing
radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones "
(F. C.i. 10).
§ 4. Mental Characteristics.
According to his biographer- friend, Constantine was even more conspicuous for the excellence
of his psychical qualities than his physical {V. C. i. 19). Among these qualities are natural intelli-
gence (K C. I. 19), sound judgment ( F. C. 1. 19), well-disciplined power of thought (Theoph.
p. 29), and peculiarly, as might be expected from his eye and general energy, penetration
(Theoph. p. 29). In respect of Education, it is said on the one hand that he "reaped the
advantages of a liberal education" (F. C. i. 19), and particularly that he was thoroughly
trained in the art of reasoning (V. C.) ; l)ut according to Anonymous Vales, (p. 471), and also
Ccdrenus (p. 473), his literary education was scanty. If there was early lack, he made up
for it afterwards with characteristic energy, for he attained very considerable erudition (of a
sort) for an emperor, as is shown in his Oration. According to Eutropius he was devoted to
liberal studies. According to Lydus he was skilled both in the science of letters and the science
of arms ; for " if he had not excelled in both sciences, he would not have been made emperor of
the Romans" (Lydus, de Magist. 3. 33), — a somewhat subjective ground. Such was his devo-
tion to study that, according to Eusebius ( F. C. 4. 29), "he sometimes passed sleepless nights
in furnishing his mind with divine knowledge." The measure of his thoroughness may be
gathered from the fact that his knowledge of Greek even, does not seem to have been very
extensive — "with which he was not altogether unacquainted " ( F. C. 3. 13). His learning, as
shown in his orations, is the learning of a man of affairs, and has many elements of crudity and
CONSTANTINIC THE GREAT. 423
consequent pretentiousness ; but he is not worse than many authors — much better than most
royal authors.
His learning had at least the excellent quality that it was radiated with reference to expression,
as all sound learning must be. According to Eusebius, much of his time was spent in composing
discourses, many of which he delivered in public (K C. 4. 29), and he continued to the last to
compose discourses and to deliver frequent orations in public.
The description by Eusebius of the character of his orations (K C. 4. 24) seems to forbid
any assumption of pure vanity as his motive. It is the most natural thing in the world that an
emperor should make speeches, and that he should speak on scholastic or religious themes, and
with the use of classical philosophy, mythology, and literature, should be no surprise in the days
of President Harrison, Mr. Gladstone, and the Emperor William. There is no doubt he wrote
and spoke vigorously and effectively to his soldiers, and on political and judicial matters (witness
his laws), and his learned literary production is very fair amateur work, considering. In the
Delivery of his speeches he seems to have had self-possession and modesty of manner, as e.g.
at the Council of Nicsea, where " he looked serenely around on the assembly with a cheerful
aspect, and having collected his thoughts, in a calm and gentle tone . . , proceeded to speak "
( F". C.T,- 11). His Literary style was somewhat inflated and verbose, but for this, compare
Special Prolegomena. His Patronage of learning showed his interest in it. Following his father's
example and continuing his work, he encouraged the schools in Gaul (cf. above). Hosius and
Eusebius were his friends and counselors. He made Lactantius tutor to Crispus (Hieron. Chron.).
He had copies of the Scriptures made and distributed ( F. C. 3. i). In short, he especially
" encouraged the study of letters " (Vict. Epit. 51) in every way.
§ 5. Moral Characteristics.
(a) In relations with events, things, or persons. First of all, Constantine excelled in Pfiergv,
that fundamental of all developed character. He was pre-eminent for masculine strength of char-
acter (Theoph. p. 29), a man of energy {vir ingens, Eutrop. 10. i). This was manifested at every
turn, in his successful military activity under Diocletian, in the decisive acts at the time of leaving
him, in the prosecution of campaigns against Maximian, Maxentius, Licinius, in the wholesale
way in which he pushed internal improvements, the building of Constantinople, the multiplication
of Christian houses of worship, in his studies, in his law-making ; in short, in everything he touched
there was the same teeming, resistless energy of the man. His Determination was " bent on
effecting whatever he had settled in his mind " (Eutrop. 10. 5). His Rapidity of action when he
rejoined his father is described by Lactantius as incredible (Lact. c. 24). He showed the same
alacrity in his quick return and surprise of Maximian, in his first entry into Italy, and in his cam-
paign against Licinius. This energy and activity rose to positive Impetuosity, which led him at
Verona, before Rome, and at Cibalis to plunge into the midst of battle, communicating his own
resistless, indomitable, alert will to do, to his soldiers. Closely linked with these qualities was
that personal Courage and Valor, inherited from his father (Paneg. 307, c. 3), mentioned by
Eusebius {V. C. i. 11), and explicitly or implicitly by almost every one. This most indubitable
of all his qualities was witnessed to even by the scoffing Julian as "inexpressibly" great {Oral.
p. 13), and mentioned even in the work whose chief aim seems, almost, to detract from Constan-
tine (^Cces. p. 23). United with all these characteristics of greatness was afar-reaching Ambition.
This on the one hand is represented to be an ambition for power and glory. He was " exceed-
ingly ambitious of military glory " (Eutrop. 10. 7) ; " aspiring to the sovereignty of the whole world "
(Eutrop. 10. 5)0 According to Zosimus, at the time of the appointment of Severus and Maximin,
already having his mind set on attaining royalty he was roused to a greater desire by the honor
conferred on Severus and Maximin, and this eager desire of power was already well known to many.
On the other hand, this ambition is represented to be a burning zeal for righting wrongs ; his
424 PROLEGOMENA.
wars against Maxentius and Licinius real crusades, and his actual objective in all things the
reform to be effected. If the fruit proves the motive, this was so ; for he consistently used or
tried to use his power for what he thought public good. This he did in Gaul, after his victories,
in his legislation, and in his internal improvements.
In view of all this powerfulness of personality, it may be said of all successes of this " man
of power " (Eutrop. lo. 5) what Eutropius says of his success in war, that it was great, "but not
more than proportioned to his exertions" (Eutrop.). With all this energy of personality, how-
ever, he was far from being headstrong. On the contrary, he showed marked Prudence, resem-
bhng his father in this also (Paneg. 307, c. 3). Sustaining so long the delicate position at the
court of Diocletian, all his provision for guarding the frontiers, his long-suffering in waiting to
be confirmed Caesar, in waiting his opportunity to meet Maxentius, in waiting and getting every-
thing in hand before meeting Licinius, his wise moderation in demand on the conquered, and the
not pressing forward until he had everything well arranged, show this, and a high degree of
Patience withal. This latter virtue was peculiarly characteristic whether exercised in respect of
things or plans or people, and his great patience in listening to complaints (Naz. c. 24) is only a
part of the whole. As he was patient, so he was distinguished for Perseverance, and " firm and
unshaken " (Theoph. p. 29) Steadfastness. So great energy united with these other qualities
barely needs testimony to suggest great Faithfulness to his tasks in hand, as in that " strict atten-
tion to his military duties " which Lactantius says (c. 18) characterized him as a young man. \\\
brief, his whole personality was a marked example of that balance of power and the measuring of
remote ends which is included under the word Self-control, in the use of the philosophy of which
he, as well as his father, was a disciple. In this exercise of his great energy towards himself he
was recognized to be remarkable. This self-control was manifested especially in his unusual
Chastity. As a young man he was marked by correct moral habits {probis moribus, Lact. c. 18).
The specific testimony of Eusebius to this ( V. C) would have comparatively little weight on a point
like this, and the same might be said, in a measure, of the testimony of the Panegyrists (Naz. c. 24 ;
307, c. 4 ; 313, c. 4), who mention this virtue. But panegyrical art would forbid the laudation
of what was conspicuously lacking ; rather it would not be mentioned, and the general testimony
goes to show at least a contemporary reputation for extraordinary continence, considering his
time and environment. His relationship with Minervina hardly touches this reputation, whether
she was wife or only legitimate concubine. The accusations and innuendoes of Julian, Cccsars,
have, in any fairly critical estimate, hardly more than the weight of some malignant gossip whose
backbiting is from his own heart. " Honi soit qui mal y pense." Like Licinius, he seems to
have been unable to understand that purity of heart which permitted the free companionship of
women in social or religious life. Julian's general charge of luxuriousness and sensuousness
(p. 43, 306, 25, 38, 42, &c.) must be regarded largely in the same light ; for this delight in
soft garments, precious gems, games, and festivities was, if we can judge aright, in no sense
" enervating pleasure and voluptuous indulgence " : for he was indefatigable in studies and works
of all sorts, although it is perhaps to be referred to the vanity and love of display of which he is
accused, and of which more later.
(b) In relations 7uith people. In general he was Amiable, — popular with the soldiers, popular
even with his subdued enemies (Eutrop. 10. 7). Diocletian reminded Galerius (Lact. c. 18) that
he was " amiable," and he must have been so ; for he was " loved by soldiers " (Eumen. c. 16),
and so "endeared to the troops" that in the aj)pointment of Caesar he was "the choice of every
individual" (Lact. c. 18). This popularity he indeed "sought by every kind of liberality and
obligingness " (Eutr. 10. 7.), but what he sought he found.
A very large element in this popularity was the universal Mildness, Mercifulness, and Forbear-
ance which he showed. In these is found a class of characteristics which stand alongside his
energy of character as peculiarly characteristic and great. " He whose familiar habit it was
to save men's lives" {V. C. 4. 6), as a young man promised, in the opinion of Diocletian
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 425
(Lact. c. 18), to be " milder and more merciful than his father." Even in the opinion of Julian he
was " far more humane (Trpaorepov) , and in very many other respects superior to others, as I would
demonstrate if there were opportunity " (Julian, Ora/. p, 15) ; and he again (p. 96) speaks of him
in laudatory terms as contrasted with the other emperors. Eusebius, as might be expected, is
still stronger in expression, and sets Constantine " in contrast with tyrants who were stained with
blood of countless numbers," saying that in Constantine's reign "the sword of justice lay idle,"
and men were " rather constrained by a paternal authority than governed by the stringent power
of the laws" ( F. C. 3. i). This mercifulness he manifested on every occasion. "When Sigu-
siuni was on fire," he directed greater effort towards saving it than he had to capturing it (Naz.
Paneg. c. 21). At the taking of Rome he punished a certain few only of those most intimate with
Maxentius (Zos.), and even Zosimus notes the great joy and relief of people at the exchange of
Constantine for Maxentius. It is noticeable that in the inscriptions the epithet " clementissimus,"
most rare of other emperors, is found a considerable number of times of him. So great was this
mildness of conduct that he was "generally blamed for his clemency" ( F. C 4. 31), on the
ground that crimes were not visited with their proper penalties. The testimony to this humane-
ness of character is almost unlimited and conclusive, but there is more or less evidence which is
urged in qualification or contradiction. It is rather a common thing to say that he was at first
mild, but later pride of prosperity caused him greatly to depart from this former agreeable mild-
ness of temper (Eutrop.). Then the execution of the various members of his own family (cf. discus-
sion below), the exposure of prisoners to the wild beasts (Eumen. Paneg. c. 12), his severe decree
against those who should conceal copies of the works of Arius (Socr. i. 9), his treatment of the
Jews (Greg. Niceph., or at least his laws), and the severe penalties of some of his laws are among
the points brought against him. But the remark of Eutropius is to be interpreted by the " former
agreeable mildness of temper," to which he himself witnesses, and the fact that this latter period
was that where the points of view of the two men had widely diverged. The exposure of
prisoners to wild beasts was no evidence of cruelty in itself; for under the customs then prevailing
it might have been cruelty to his subjects not to have done this, and his treatment of the bar-
barian enemies is rather to be interpreted in the light of the testimony of Eutropius that he
"left on the minds of the barbarians [Goths] a strong remembrance of his kindness" (10. 7).
His treatment of his family is discussed elsewhere, but whatever its bearings may be, there is no
just historico-psychological ground whatever for the use of the word which is so freely bandied, —
cruelty. Cruel he was not in any sense. Even the extreme of the Panegyrist who says to him,
"you are such by inheritance and destiny that you cannot be cruel" (Eumen. Paiieg. c. 14), is
nearer the truth. The penalties of his laws lay him open in a degree to a charge of growing severity ;
but it was great, if sometimes mistaken and overzealous, regard for what he deemed the public
welfare, and on quite a different plane from anything which we express as cruelty. Though with
the growing conservatism of a man who finds his purposes of mercy continually perverted and his
indulgences abused, he yet remained to the end of his Hfe most merciful and mild compared with
those who went before and who followed.
This fact becomes more clear in seeing how he excelled in kindred virtues. The Patience
already mentioned, distinguished forbearance, and undoubted benevolence, or at least generosity,
are traits which group with mercy and have no fellowship with cruelty. And these he had. He
showed distinguished Forbearance, and that oftentimes, as in a disturbance at Antioch, where he
"applied with much forbearance the remedy of persuasion" (K C. 3. 59). The outrageous
conduct of those who, in the Arian disturbances, dared " even to insult the statues of the emperor
. , . had little power to excite his anger, but rather caused in him sorrow of spirit " ( V. C.
3. 4), "and he endured with patience men who were exasperated against himself." These words
are by Eusebius, to be sure ; but his conduct with Donatists, Arians, Maximinianus, and Licinius,
in individual and on the whole, show that in fact he did habitually exercise great forbearance.
To this was added much activity of positive Kindness. On first accession he " visited with much
426 PROLEGOMENA.
considerate kindness all those provinces" (V. C. p. 23). This kindness was shown throughout
his reign, and brightly illustrated in his treatment of the persecuted Christians from the begin-
ning, — in his acts in Gaul, in his famous toleration edict, in his letter to Maximin, and in his
acts throughout. After his victory over Maxentius came the edict that those wrongfully deprived
of their estates should be permitted to enjoy them again, . . . unjustly exiled were recalled and
freed from imprisonment (Euseb. V. C. i. 41). After the victory over Licinius he recalled Chris-
tian exiles, ordered restitution of property, released from labor in mines, from the solitude of
islands, from toil in public works, &c., those who had been oppressed in these ways {V. C.
p. 70-71). There is strong concensus of testimony to a very lovable habitual exercise of this trait
in his "readiness to grant hearing," "patience in listening," and "kindness of response " to those
whose complaints he had patiently listened to (Naz. 24). He was most excellent {commodis-
simus) to hear embassies and complaints of provinces (Vict. Epit. p. 51), — a testimony which
is borne out by the facts. His Generosity is equally undoubted. Plis magnificent gifts and
largesses to the army were still remembered in the time of Julian {Orai. p. 13). His constant
and lavish giving to the Christians is Eusebius' unending theme : but it was not to the churches
alone; for we read of his munificence to heathen tribes ( F. C. 2. 22), his liberality to the poor
{V. C. I. 43) in giving money for clothing, provision for orphans and widows, marriage portions
for virgins, compensation to losers in law suits {V. C. 4. 4). It was "scarcely possible to be
near him without benefit " ( V. C. i. 43 ; cf. V. C. 3. 16 ; 3. 22 ; 4. 44).
Though slow to serve some friends through suspicion (i.e. diibius thus explained), he was " ex-
ceedingly generous towards others, neglecting no opportunity to add to their riches and honors "
(Eutrop. 10. 7). "With royal magnificence he unlocked all his treasures and distributed
his gifts with rich and high-souled liberality" ( F. C. 3. i). He seems to have carried it rather
to excess, even on the showing of Eusebius. " No one could request a favor of the emperor,
and fail of obtaining what he sought. . . . He devised new dignities, that he might invest a
larger number with the tokens of his favor" ( F. C. 4. 2). It is worth giving the account by
Eusebius of this conduct in full here. He says ( V. C. 4. 54) that this " was a virtue, however,
which subjected him to censure from many, in consequence of the baseness of wicked men, who
ascribed their own crimes to the emperor's forbearance. In truth, I can myself bear testimony
to the grievous evils which prevailed during those times : I mean the violence of rapacious and
unprincipled men, who preyed on all classes of society alike, and the scandalous hypocrisy of
those who crept into the church. . . . His own benevolence and goodness of heart, the genuine-
ness of his own faith, and his truthfulness of character induced the emperor to credit the profes-
sions of those reputed Christians who craftily preserved the semblance of sincere affection for his
person. The confidence he reposed in such men sometimes forced him into conduct umvorthy
of himself, of which envy took advantage to cloud in this respect the luster of his character."
There seems, therefore, some ground for the charge ol Prodigality, that he "wasted public money
in many useless buildings, some of which he shortly after destroyed because they were not built
to stand" (Zos.), and (Zos. p. 104) "gave great largesses to ill-deserving persons, mistaking
profusion for munificence " (t^v yap do-wrtav TyyeiTo ^tXon/Atav) . Zosimus adds that to do this,
he " imposed severe taxes on all, so severe that fathers were obliged to prostitute their daughters
to raise the money, that tortures were employed, and in consequence whole villages depopulated."
This testimony is, however, by one bitterly i)rcjudiced, who regarded money spent on Christian
houses of worship as worse than wasted, and indicates only what appears from Eusebius as well,
that expenditures for cities, schools, and churches built, and for other matters, must have been
enormous. But so, too, they were enormous under other emperors, and Constantine, at least,
instead of spending on debauchery, seems to have had something to show for it. As to taxes,
Zosimus would undoubtedly sympathize with the Kentucky moonshiners in their " oppression "
by revenue officers, if he were here now and Constantine were President, and would fulminate
in the daily papers against the wicked party which by its wicked tariff compels men to marry
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 427
their daughters to rich husbands in order to get their taxes paid, — and incidental luxuries
supplied. But that docs not say that an exorbitant tariff, to supply "jobs " which shall furnish
rich " spoils " for those who have " pulls " out of the pockets of the many, is good ; yet this,
in modern phrase, is about what Constantine did. Constantine's trust in liis friends and gener-
osity to the unworthy, with its consequences on the tax-payers, reminds strikingly of some of our
own soldier-presidents, whom we love and admire without approving all their acts. And yet, on
the other hand, much of the expenditure was for solid improvement, and could only be criticised
by those who now oppose expenditures for navy, for improved postal service, public buildings,
subsidies, &c. ; though yet, again, his wholesale way of doing tilings also reminds one of the large
generosity of some modern politicians in their race for popularity, with their Pension, Education,
River and Harbor, and what not liberalities out of the pockets of the people. I5ut whatever
unwisdom may have been mingled, all this profusion shows in him a generosity of character which
was at least amiable, and in the main genuine. His generosity took also the form of Hospitality,
as shown by his entertainings at the Council of Nica^a ( F. C. 4. 49). With all these qualities of
amiable popularity there seems to have been joined a yet more fundamental element, of perma-
nent influence among men, in a spirit of Justice so marked that the claim of the Panegyrist is
hardly too sweeping when he says that " all who took refuge with him for whatever cause he
treated justly and liberally" (Paneg. 307. 5) — if there is added "up to his light and ability."
Closely linked with this again is that " Undcndiiig righteousness^^ of which Theophanes (p. 29)
speaks. And to all these qualities was added that synthesis of qualities, — a remarkable Tact in
his intercourse with men, a trait typically exemplified in his conduct at the Council of Nica^a,
where " the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and reviewed every proposition with
steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the arguments of each party in turn, he grad-
ually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation, . . . persuading some,
convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of
sentiment, until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting
every disputed question " ( V. C. 3. 13).
But success with men and popularity seem to have opened that pitfall of success, — Vanity, —
and it is charged that he fell thereinto, although there is testimony to the exact contrary.
According to Victor {Epit. p. 5 1) he was " immeasurably greedy of praise." This agrees with, and
is at the same time modified by Eutropius' testimony to his ambition for glory and for honorable
popularity (10. 7), and his apparently complacent reception of the outrageous flattery of Optatian
(cf. his letter), seems at least to show some weakness in this direction. So again his tendency
toward Magnificence, as shown in his assuming the diadem and his dress in general (cf. above),
in the splendor of banquets as witnessed by his approving friend (F. C. 3. 15), his desire to do
on a large scale whatever he did, whether in the building of cities or splendid houses of worship,
or in book-binding ornamentations of pearls and gems. And yet again it is shown in what seems
at this distance his Conceit, sublime in its unconsciousness in reckoning himself a sort of thirteenth,
but, it would seem, a facile princeps apostle, in the disposition for his burial, " anticipating with
extraordinary fervor of faith that his body would share their title with the apostles themselves.
. . . He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church, Uke sacred pillars, in
honor and memory of the apostolic number, in the centre of which his own was placed, having
six of theirs on either side of it " ( V. C. 4. 60) . One can seem to read in this a whole history
of unblushing flattery, and it reminds that Eunapius {Vic. cedes, p. 41) has spoken of his pleasure
in the stimulant of " intoxicating flaitery." Still it is not to be supposed that this was a peculiarly
weak vanity or an absorbing one. The testimony to his Modesty ( V. C. 3. 10), though by Euse-
bius, is too circumstantial to be wholly unreal, and the testimony to his Humility in his " indigna-
tion at excessive praise " ( V. C. 4. 48), and the records of Eusebius that he " was not rendered
arrogant by these plaudits nor uplifted by the praises " (Euseb. V. C.i. 39), and of the Chronicon
Paschale (p. 521) that "he was not at all puffed up by the acclamations," evidently represent a
428 PROLEGOMENA.
genuine thing. This mixed character is too frequently met with to be incomprehensible. Real
power, recognizing its own success, glad of the recognition of others, not at bottom because of
cold vanity, but from warm appreciation of human friendliness, became through success in carry-
ing out what seemed to him, and were, divine plans, fired with the thought that he was the
especial and necessary minister of God, that his thoughts and will were directly touched by the
Divine Will and thus that whatever he thought or willed was infaUible. He is not unlike some
modem rulers. The spirit, though one of real vanity, or egotism at least, has an element of
nobleness in it, and in most of its manifestations commands respect along with the smile. The
accusation of Zosimus of ^r;v^rt:;^<r<f " when he had attained to the sole authority," and that he
"gave himself up to the unrestrained exercise of his power," must be interpreted like those of other
un-Christian witnesses, in the light of the fact that his actions worked relative hardships to the
non-Christians, and that very justice to the Christians would seem injustice to them, and if Con-
stantine was more than just, his generosity was at some one's expense. His energy of execution
and constant success, with his dominating idea of a Divine mission, would naturally engender this
faith in his own infallibility; for what is arrogance but this vanity joined with power? His action
toward schismatics — Donatists, Arians, or orthodox troublers of his peace — was such as to suggest
some degree of this vice. Yet his success in keeping the followers of the old religion fairly molli-
fied, and his generally successful tact, showed that this was in no sense a dominating and unrelieved
characteristic. Two other weaknesses closely allied with these are also imputed to Constantine :
Jealousy, as illustrated by the statement that " wishing to minimize the deeds of his predecessors,
he took pains to tarnish their virtues by giving them jocose epithets " (Dion. Cont. 2 [Miiller,
p. 199] ; cf. Vict. Epit. p. 51), and Suspiciousness (Eutrop. 10. 7) ; for which latter, a man who
had survived as many plots as he had, might well be excused. Again and again and again he
trusted men, and they deceived him. His conduct with Maximian shows that at least in the
beginning, before he had had so much experience of untrustworthiness, he was remarkably free
from this. A much more serious charge is that of Faithlessness preferred by Zosimus, who says
(2. 28), " in violation of his oaths (for this was customary with him) " and twice repeats the
charge. Eusebius, on the other hand, tells what great pains Constantine took not to be the one
to break peace with Licinius (K C). One is worth as little as the other. The charge seems
to rest mainly or wholly on his conduct towards Licinius, in beginning war and in putting him to
death. A small boy once held a smaller boy in a firm grip, but agreed to spare him the cuffing
he deserved because he was smaller. The smaller small boy promptly set his teeth in the leg
of the larger small boy, and was properly cuffed for it. Thereupon the smaller small boy's big
brother was filled with indignation, which he manifested by seeking and finding the same fate.
The indignation in behalf of Licinius seems to be in large measure big brother indignation —
indignation with the wrong party. He appears to have been one of those who held a compact
to be binding on the other party only. It wasn't in the bargain that he should persecute the
Christians, or in the other bargain that he should plot his benefactor's overthrow. That king in
Scripture who took back his promise to forgive a debt of ten thousand talents was not faithless.
(c) In relations zuith his family. He was a filial Son, having the confidence of his father, as
shown in his wish of succession, and showing his mother all honors when he came to power (cf,
coins showing her position as empress, and V. C). "And well may his character be styled blessed
for his filial piety as well as on other grounds " ( F. C. 3. 47).
It is in this relation to his family, however, that the most serious attacks on the character of
Constantine have been made. Eutropius says : " But the pride of prosperity caused Constantine
greatly to depart from his former agreeable mildness of temper. Falling first upon his own
relatives, he put to death his son, an excellent man ; his sister's son, a youth of amiable disposition ;
soon afterwards his wife ; and subsequently many of his friends." This has been a battle-ground
of accusation or excusation in all the centuries. The testimony is very meagre and uncertain, but
this much may be said : i. That any jury would regard the fact of deaths as evidenced. It is
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
429
witnessed by Eutrop. (10. 6), Zos., Vict., Hieron., &c. 2. That he was unjustifiable is not
proven. In respect to the death of Fausta, at least, there was probably just cause ; whether love
intrigue or other intrigue, there seems to have been some real occasion. The death of Crispus,
too, was from no mere suspicions, but on apparently definite grounds of distrust. It is historical
assumption to say that he had no good grountls, whatever these may have been — illicit relation-
ship with Fausta or more probably political intrigue. At the worst, he was put to death on false
but, at the time, apparently true accusation : what has been done by judges and juries of the
best intention.^ Of Licinius, his sister's son, it can hardly be said that he had the same reason,
as he was still a boy. But remembering the inherited character of Licinius, and noticing the
curious fact that the cordiality between Constantia and Constantine was peculiarly great to the end,
it seems as if there must have been some mitigating circumstance." In all historical candor it
looks as if there had been some general intrigue against Constantine which had been met in
this way ; but the fairest verdict to enter is " causes unknown."
In estimating the characteristic value of the acts it must be noted, i. That it has in no sense
the character of private execution. The emperor was judge. Even if he mistook evidence and
put to death an innocent man, it was as when a judge does the same. 2. That the relative moral
character of punishments inflicted is conditioned by the custom of punishment. An English
judge of the past was not as cruel in hanging a man for theft, as a modern one in applying the
extreme penalty of the law to an offense with mitigating circumstances, would be. 3. That all law
of evidence, all rhyme and reason, says that any man's any act is to be interpreted in the light of
his general character. Where evidence is lacking or doubtful, such evidence of general character
has actual weight, and may be conclusive. In application to these acts note {a) The peculiar
forbearance which Constantine exercised toward Maximian. {b) The conclusive universal testi-
mony to the general mildness of his character and his habitual mercifulness. In view of this, it is
to be judged that there was some real, or appearing, great ground of judicial wrath. 4. That Con-
stantine had suffered from plots on the part of his own relatives over and over again, and spared,
and been plotted against again, as in the cases of Maximian, Bassianus, and Licinius. 5. That
they were not put to death " in a gust of passion " at once, but in successive acts. In view of
these things it is fair and just to say that they were put to death on grounds which seemed just
and for the welfare of society, and their deaths in no sense indicate cruelty or unnaturalness on
the part of Constantine. Even the death of Licinius must be interpreted by the political ethics
of the times and its circumstances. So long as sentimentalists continue to send bouquets to
murderers and erect monuments to anarchists, they will regard execution, even legal execution,
2& prima facie evidence of cruelty, and the killing of a murderer in self-defense, or the hanging
of a traitor, as crime. Constanline's whole character ensures that if he thought he could have
spared them, or any one, with safety, he would have done so.^
In general he was a faithful husband as respects marital virtue, and a good father. He took
care that his children should be well educated. Crispus was under Lactantius (Hieron.), and
the others perhaps under Arborius ("Auson.de Prof. Burdig. 16 ") ; at all events, he had the most
accomplished teachers of secular learning to instruct in the art of war, and in political and legal
science ( F. C 4. 51), and both by his own instruction and that of men of approved piety, took
special pains with their religious training. He early appointed them to offices of authority, and
distributed the empire among them.
' It is hardly necessary to say that the various tales of the re-
morse of Constantine for the death of Crispus are mythical. The
tale of Sopater has been mentioned. That of Codinus (^De signo
Cp. p. 62-63), also that, " in regret for death of Crispus, he erected
a statue of pure silver with the inscription, ' My unjustly treated
son,' and did penance besides," falls into the same category.
- Seeck {Ztschr.f. luiss. Theol. 1890, p. 73) maintains that it is
established (" urkundlich fest ") that Licinius was still living in 336,
in which case he would have been more than twenty years old. He
maintains also that he was not the son of Constantine, but the ille-
gitimate son of Licinius by a slave woman.
3 On this question compare especially monographs of Gorres and
Seeck. See under Literature, where other. titles, e.g. Hug and
Wegnerus, will also be found. In general, the remark of Luder-
mann (Lipsius, Theol. Ja/irb. 18S6, p. loS) is valid, " The argu-
ments against Constantine's Christianity, which are drawn from his
moral character, have ever been the weakest,"
430 PROLEGOMENA.
(d) In relations with friends. His general conduct toward his friends was marked by very
great liberality (cf. above). Eutropius speaks emphatically of this even while he uses the expres-
sion which has been such a puzzle to all, that "toward some of his friends he was double " (or
dangerous), a phrase which is interpreted by Johannes Ant. as meaning " to some of friends false
(unsound, {ittowAws) and unsafe (unwholesome, ovy^ vytw?) " (ed. Mtiller 4. p. 602-3). His uni-
form effort to please his friends has been discussed above.
(e) In relations with society, i. As General he seems to have been popular with his own
soldiers (cf. above), inspiring them with enthusiasm and energy. Toward hostile soldiers he was
merciful (cf. above), not following up an advantage further than was necessary, and toward con-
quered enemies unusually forbearing ; e.g. at Sigusium, at Rome, with Maximian, with Licinius, and
with the Goths (cf. above). His generalship is characterized by careful provision for the guarding
of his rear, and by rapidity of movement and dash in actual conflict. 2. As Legislator he
" enacted many laws, some good, but most of them superfluous, and some severe " (Eutrop. 10. 8) .
He seems to have had a weakness for law-making which, at all events, shows a characteristic
respect for law little shared by his early contemporaries. Of course Eutropius would consider all
laws in favor of Christians superfluous. Laws for the abolition of idolatrous practices, for the
erection of Christian houses of worship, observance of the Lord's Day ( K C. 4. 23), permitting
cases to be tried before bishops (Soz. 1.9; Euseb. H. E. 10. 7 ; Cod. Theod. Tit. de episc. 2),
&c., would surely seem so. But even in other laws Constantino seems to have had at times an
abnormal zeal for law-making, when his energies were not occupied in war or church-building.
The laws were generally wise and, at the least, benevolently or righteously meant. Such were the
abolition of crucifixion (Vict. Cics^ and of gladiatorial shows ( K C. 4. 25 ; Socr. i. 8 ; C. Theod.
15. 12. i), the law that the families of slaves were not co be separated (C. Theod. 2. 25), that
forbidding the scourging of debtors (C. Theod. 7. 3), and that repressing calumny (Vict. Epit. 51).
Among the " severe " laws were such as punished certain forms of illicit intercourse with death.
3. As Statesman his policy was broad and for-reaching. He fully organized and carefully
estabhshed one section of his territory before he enlarged. He changed the whole constitution
of the empire, both civil and military (cf. Wordsworth, in Smith & W.). He inaugurated reforms
in finance, and especially was most assiduous in the matter of internal improvements, restoring
and building from one end of the empire to the other. The great characteristic consummation
of his reign was the union of Church and State, over which men are still divided as to whether it
was a tremendous blessing or a tremendous curse. Tremendous it surely was in its shaping power
on world history. (Compare numerous titles under Literature.^ The general statement of
Eutropius that " in the beginning of his reign he might have been compared to the best princes,
in the latter part only to those of a middling character," must be interpreted by the fact that
during the latter part of his reign he was so associated with Christianity, in itself a falling away in
the eyes of the old religionists. His reign was one of order and justice such as few were, and
an order out of chaos, a reign in which it could be peculiarly said that " chastity was safe and
marriage protected" (Naz. c. 38), where a man's life and i)roperty were secure as under few of
the Roman emperors. It is idle to refuse the title of Great to a man who, from the beginning,
followed a consistent, though developing policy, organized the interior, and securely guarded the
frontier of his empire at each enlargement, and finally unified the whole on such a basis as to
secure large internal prosperity and development.
§ 6. Religious Characteristics.
Was Constantine a Christian? This vain question has to be considered, hardly discussed.
The interminable opinions, one way or the other, are for the most part wise-seeming, meaningless
generalizations. Like any generalized statement, it is conditioned by the point of view of the
author. When ten men answered the question "What is a Christian?" in ten different ways, who
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
431
shall say what any one is ? This has been the difliculty. One does not conceive of Christianity
apart from baptismal regeneration. The (luestion has then narrowed to one of baptism. Con-
stantine was not a Christian until just before his death. Another has some other test. Another
is not a Christian himself, and so on. A good lUblical, Protestant starting-point is to say he was
a Christian as soon as he believed in Christ, and that the evidence of faith is in confession and
action. Already, before his campaign into Italy, he seems to have been in intimate contact with
the Christians. Hosius was probably already one of his advisers. The young emperor had
inherited his father's piety (Paneg. 307, c. 5), and was inclined to monotheism. The words of
advisers must have made him think at least, and he seems to have made a sort of test of believing
at the time of the famous "vision of the cross," whatever that may have been. Judging from
the way men think and feel their way to faith, it seems psychologically probable that, feeling his
way along to that point, he tried faith and, having success, he substantially believed from that time
on. Certainly from a very early period after this, the evidences begin to be clear and increasingly
so as presumably his faith itself became more clear and fixed. The account in Eusebius of the
process of thought by which he inclined toward Christianity has the greatest plausibility. He
says that " considering the matter of Divine assistance, it occurred to him that those who had
relied on idols had been deceived and destroyed, while his father . . . had honored the one
Supreme God, had found him Saviour, &c. ... he judged it folly to join in the idle worship of
those who v/ere no gods . . . and felt it incumbent on him to honor no other than the God of
his father." The nature of the vision of the cross, whether a miracle, a natural phenomenon, or
only a dream, does not affect the probability of the account by Eusebius of what followed it
(F. C. I. 32). "At the time above specified, being struck with amazement at the extraordinary
vision, and resolving to worship no other God save him who had appeared to him, he sent for
those who were acquainted with the mysteries of his doctrines, and inquired also what God was.
. . . They affirmed that he was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God," and
he thereupon " made the priests of God his counsellors and deemed it incumbent on him to
honor the God who had appeared to him, with all devotion." According to Sozomen, " it is uni-
versally admitted Constantine embraced the religion of the Christians previous to his war with
Maxentius and prior to his return to Rome and Italy ; and this is evidenced by the dates of the
laws which he enacted in favor of religion" (Soz. i. 5; cf. i. 3). Philostorgius (i. 6), "in
conformity with all other writers," ascribes to the victory over Maxentius (Photius. Epif.). This
is confirmed, too, by the remark of the Panegyrist (313, c. 4 ; cf. c. 2 and c. 11), that he con-
ducted the war by Divine instruction, and the famous inscription on the triumphal arch, " itistiiictu
Divinitatis." According to Augustine he was at the time of the petition of the Donatists, " mind-
ful of the hope which he maintained in Christ" (August, contra lift. Pciil. Bk. II. c. 92, p. 205).
The tales of his baptism at this time, or by Sylvester at all, are pure fables (cf. under The Mythi-
cal Constantine) , but it appears from antecedent probability, from testimony, and from his early
subsequent identification with the Christians that he became fairly convinced at this time. His
letters concerning the council at Aries, to be sure, have little direct evidence, but enough to show
that he regarded the Christian religion as the worship of that one supreme God, and in them
Hosius was already his trusted adviser. But in his letters to Chrestus (314) he speaks of those
who are "forgetful of their own salvation and the reverence due to the most holy faith," and if
his letter to the bishops after the council at Aries — a letter full of expressions like " Christ the
Saviour," " brethren beloved," " I who myself await the judgment of Christ," " our Saviour " ^ —
be genuine, Constantine was well advanced in his commitment in 314 ; but whether it is or not,
^ It seems to have been frequently accepted as such — in the
collections of councils, by the editor of Optatus, Ceillier, &c. It
first appeared in the edition of Optatus, among the monuments re-
lating to the Donatists gathered by him. These monuments are
from one single though tolerably ancient MS., and no source for
this is quoted, though the sources of others are given. In itself con-
sidered it is a surprise to find it at this stage of Constantine's life.
Still, it is not unlike his later productions, and it is not impossible to
think of its having been written in the enthusiasm of a successfully
ended enterprise. It would seem (unless there be some confirma-
tory study of the letter, not now at hand) that a cautious criticism
would base nothing on this letter alone.
432 PROLEGOMENA.
the fact of his Christian advisers, of his laws in behalf of Christians, and various substantial favors
to them, his recognition of their God as his one God, makes it almost idle to discuss the question.
Was Constantine a Christian in 314? What is a Christian? He seems to have been. The type
was that of many a business-man church-member of to-day — Christians, but neither over-well-
instructed, nor dangerously zealous in the exercise of his faith. It must be remembered that
during these earlier years his confession of his faith and identification of himself with the Chris-
tians was conditioned by his relation to the old religion. Such a change was a radical novelty.
His position was not yet secure. He had to use his utmost tact to keep all elements in hand.
He was conditioned just as a modern Christian emperor or president, a majority of whose political
advisers and subjects or electors are non-religious. He had great problems of political organiza-
tion to effect, and was immersed in these. The only matter of surprise is that he grew so rapidly.
There is no ground whatever for supposing that he dissembled to the end, or even at all. To say
that his retaining the title of pontifex maximus, or making concessions respecting the old worshij),
or allowing soothsayers to be consulted, or even the postponement of his baptism, indicate this,
is critical absurdity in the face of evidence.^ Testimony, both heathen and Christian, to the
openness of his action is complete, and the testimony of his acts — such, e.g., as the law for the
observance of Sunday — conclusive. Later, at least, he " most openly destroyed temple worship
and built Christian houses of worship" (Eunap. Vita ^cks. 37, ed. Boiss. p. 20). From the
defeat of Licinius on, edicts, letters, speeches, acts of all sorts, testify to a most unequivocal adop-
tion of the Christian religion. Eusebius hardly overstates in saying that "he maintained a contin-
ual testimony to his Christianity, with all boldness and before all men, and so far was he from
shrinking from an open profession of the Christian name, that he rather desired to make it mani-
fest to all that he regarded this as his highest honor" (K C. 3. 2). Really the question whether
he considered himself, or was considered, a Christian at and after the time of the Council of
Nicsea is too idle even to mention, if it had not been gravely discussed. In the opinion of the
bishops there he was "most pious" and "dear to God" i^Ep. synod, in Socr. i. 9; Theodoret,
I. 8). On his part, letters are full of pious expression and usually begin or end or both with
" beloved brethren." To the council itself he describes himself as " fellow-servant " of " Him
who is our common Lord and Saviour." Another more considerable position is that all that
indisputable external connection with Christianity was pure political expediency, that he was
a shrewd politician who saw which way the wind was blowing, and had skill to take advantage of
it. That Constantine was not a Christian in the strict sense even to the end of his life was the
position of Keim. Burckhardt regards him as a pure politician, without a touch of Christian life.
Brieger (1880) says we have not grounds to decide either way, whether he was "a godless
egoistic fatalist or had a more or less warm religious or even Christian interest," but that the
fixed fact is, that it was not because of his inner belief in the Christian religion that he showed
favor to the Christians. In a brief attempt to get some basis in the sources, the enthusiastic
testimony of Eusebius and other writers, explicit as it is, may be quite disregarded, even the
testimony to facts, such as his practice of giving thanks (F. C. i. 39), of invoking Divine aid
(Euseb. V. C. 2, 4, 6, 13 ; Soz. 2. 34), of his erecting a place of prayer in his palace (Soz. i. 8),
of his fasting (K C. 2. 41), of his having a stated hour of prayer ( F. C. 4. 22), although all these
are interesting. The documents, however, unless by supremely uncritical rejection, can be regarded
as fundamental sources. A brief analysis of these, even though imperfect, will furnish grounds
on the basis of which those who apply various tests may apply them. Starting from his faith in
Christ, surely the center of Christianity, he believed Christ to be Son of God, " God and the Son
of God the author of every blessing" (.S". C), the revealer of the Father, who has "revealed
a pure light in the person of Thy Son . . . and hast thus given testimony concerning Thyself"
(^. C. i), proceeding from the Father {S. C), and incarnate, his incarnation having been pre-
* His saying before baptism is discussed in the / '. C. 4. 2, notes.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 433
dieted also by the prophets. He beUeved this Son of God to be his Saviour {Ad Tyr., Ad Ani.,
Ad Euseb., &c.) "our common Lord and Saviour" {Ad Eiisel>.), "our Saviour, our hope,
and our Hfe " {Ad eccl. AL). He beheved in his miraculous birth {S. C.) and in his death
for our deliverance {AdNic; c{. Ad Mac. ^c), "the path which leads to everlasting life"
{S. C. i), "a precious and toilsome" work {Ad Euseb.), and in his ascension into heaven
{S. C. i). He believed in "God the Father" {Ad Euseb. 2), "Almighty" {Ad Euseb.), Lord
of all {Ad Euseb. 2), and the Holy Ghost {Ad eccl. At.; cf. S. C). He believed in "Divine
Providence" {Ad Eccl. Al. ; Ad Alex, et Ar.; Ad. Euseb. i), God the preserver of all men
{Ad Alex. elAr.), who sees all things {Ad Syn. Nic), who is near us and the observer of all our
actions {S. C), and "under the guidance of whose Almighty hand " he is {Ad Prov. Pal), that
all things are regulated by the determination of his will {Ad Euseb.). He believed in the exis-
tence of a personal devil {Ad Eccl. AL), He believed in the future life {Ad Prov. Pal.), "the
only true life" {S. C. 12), the "strife for immortality" {Ad Euseb.), to which those may aspire
who know Him {S. C. 12). He believed in future rewards and punishments {Ad Prov. Pal; S.
C. 23). He believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures {Ad Eccl. Al.). He loved God {Ad Euseb.
2 ; V. C. 2. 55), and considered it his chief work in life to glorify Christ (S. C). He loved his
fellow-men, being disposed " to love you with an enduring affection " {Ad Anl. ; V. C. 3. 60,
&c.), and recognized it as virtue in others (8, c. 11). To him, God, in general, is the source of
all blessings {Ad Prov. Pal.; S. C, «S:c.). "I am most certainly persuaded," he says, "that I
myself owe my life, my every breath, in short, my very inmost and secret thoughts to the favor of
the Supreme God" {Ad Prov. Pal.). He recognizes contrition as a requisite for pardon {Ad.
Prov. Pal), and that it is the power of God which removes guilt {Ad Euseb.). In the conduct
of life. " Our Saviour's words and precepts are a model, as it were, of what our life should be "
{Ad. Ant.; V. C 3. 60).
Expositions of his doctrinal and ethical positions might be multiplied almost without end from
the many and fruitful sources, but a few specimens in his own expression will best show the
spirit of his religious life. A most suggestive and beautiful sketch of Christ's ministry on earth
too long to quote here may be found in his Oration (ch. 15), but the following selections will give
the idea :
A description of the inner Christian life. "For the only power in man which can be ele-
vated to a comparison with that of God is sincere and guiltless service and devotion of heart to
Himself, with the contemplation and study of whatever pleases Him, the raising our affections
above the things of earth, and directing our thoughts, as far as we may, to high and heavenly
objects" {S. C. 14).
A description of the outer Christian life. " Compare our religion with your own. Is
there not with us genuine concord, and unwearied love of others? If we reprove a fault, is not
our object to admonish, not to destroy; our correction for safety, not for cruelty? Do we not
exercise not only sincere faith toward God, but fidelity in the relations of social life ? Do we
not pity the unfortunate ? Is not ours a life of simplicity which disdains to cover evil beneath the
mask of fraud and hypocrisy?" {S. C. 23).
A prayer. " Not without cause, O holy God, do I prefer this prayer to Thee, the Lord of
all. Under Thy guidance have I devised and accomplished measures fraught with blessing :
preceded by Thy sacred sign, I have led Thy armies to victory : and still on each occasion of
public danger, I follow the same symbol of Thy perfections while advancing to meet the foe.
Therefore have I dedicated to Thy service a soul duly attempered by love and fear. For Thy
name I truly love, while I regard with reverence that power of which Thou hast given abundant
proofs, to the confirmation and increase of my faith " {Ad prov. Or.).
A confession of faith in God and iti Christ. " This God I confess that I hold in unceasing
honor and remembrance ; this God I delight to contemplate with pure and guileless thoughts in
the height of his glory." " His pleasure is in works of moderation and gentleness. He loves
the meek and hates the turbulent spirit, delighting in faith. He chastises unbehef" {Ad Sap.).
VOL. I. F f
434
PROLEGOMENA.
" He is the supreme judge of all things, the prince of immortality, the giver of everlasting life "
{S. C. 36).
Was Constantine a Christian? Let each one apply his own test.
§ 7. General Characterizations.
Before trying to gather into continuous statement the traits of character which have been
examined, a few general characterizations must be mentioned at least. Beginning at the bottom,
the unfriendly, or hostile, or at the least unsympathetic, heathen testimonies generalize him as at
least relatively and on the whole both great and good. The general tendency of heathen testi-
mony is to represent him as admirable in the early part of his reign, but execrable, or less admir-
able, in the latter part ; that of Christian writers is to represent a growth of excellence, which
raises him to saintship at the end. This is most natural. Favoring Christianity was itself a
moral fall to a heathen, and bestowing money on Christians would be robbery. The turning of
his character was with his changing face towards Christianity, and culminated in the overthrow
of Licinius. Licinius fought really as the champion of heathenism. The adherents of a lost
cause are characterizing their victor. It is like an ex-Confederate characterizing Lincoln or
Grant. The point of view is different. Honest and true men in the South thought Lincoln a
curse, and often in popular verdict his character was " black." The popular proverb quoted by
Victor {Epit. p. 51), "Bull-necked for ten years, for twelve a freebooter, and for ten a spend-
thrift (immature child)," has just the value of a Southern popular opinion of Lincoln, or a rural
Northerner's of "Jeff Davis." Lideed, the first might summarize at times the Southern popular
verdict of Grant ; the second, a frequently expressed estimate of Lincoln's conduct in the emanci-
pation of slaves ; and the third, their view of the enormous expenditure for pensions of Union
soldiers, even as it was fifteen years ago. But even the rather severe Victor, who reports this
proverb, finds Constantine "most excellent (conunodissinuis) in many respects," — in respect of
certain laws, in his patronage of the arts, especially that of letters, as scholar, as author, in the
hearing of delegations and complaints (p. 51). Again, " Praxagoras, though a heathen, says that
in all sorts of virtue and personal excellence and good fortune, Constantine outshone all the
emperors who preceded him" (Photius, Cod. 62, ed. Miiller, p. i). And finally, the heathen
Eutropius, who characterizes from his standpoint so admirably,' though he naturally finds that
" in the beginning of his reign he might have been compared to the best princes ; in the latter
part, only to those of middling character," nevertheless records " that innumerable good qualities of
mind and body were present in him," and that he was "deservedly enrolled among the gods," —
using the i?ieruit which he uses also of Aurelian, but not generally, and not even of Constantius.
On purely heathen testimony, therefore, Constantine, taken by and large, was comparatively
remarkable and admirable. A moderate Christian characterization is that of Theophanes (p. 29) :
" Pre-eminent for masculine strength of character, penetration of mind, well-disciplined power of
thought ; for unbending righteousness, ready benevolence, thorough majestic beauty of countenance,
mighty and successful in war, great in wars with the barbarians, invincible in domestic wars, and
so firm and unshaken in faith that through prayer he obtained the victory in all his battles."
' " Constantine, being a man of great energy, bent upon effecting
whatever he had settled in his mind. . . . But the pride of pros-
perity caused Constantine greatly to depart from his former agree-
able mildness of temper. Falling first upon his own relatives, he
put to death his son, an excellent man; his sister's son, a youth of
amiable disposition; soon afterwards his wife; and subsequently
many of his friends.
" He was a man who, in the beginning of his reign, might have
been compared to the best princes; in the latter part of it, only
to those of middling character. Innumemble good ([ualities of
mind and body were apparent in him; he was exceedingly ambitious
of military glory, and had great success in his wars; a success,
however, not more than proportioned to his exertions. After he
had terminated the Civil War, he also overthrew the Goths on
various occasions, granting them at last peace, and leaving on the
minds of the barbarians a strong remembrance of his kindness. He
w.as attaclicd to the arts of peace and to lil)eral studies, and was
ambitious of honorable popularity, whicli he, indeed, sought by
every kind of liberality and obligingness. Though he was slow,
from suspicion, to serve some of his friends, yet he was exceedingly
generous towards others, neglecting no opportunity to add to their
riches and honors. He enacted many laws, some good and equita-
ble, but most of them superfluous, and some severe."
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 435
Remembering, therefore, that in order to understand a character in past centuries one must
project himself into his time ; remembering again the circumstances of his time and its practice,
we shall, without forgetting any of the acts on which he has been judged, find him on indisputable
testimony superior to most of the other emperors in character, and as much above the circumstances
of his times as would characterize a man of to-day as of peculiarly high moral character. In view
of this, it is uncritical, and a violence to historical evidence, to approach one whom, at death, the
heathen thought worthy to be enrolled among the gods, and the Christians canonized as saint (in
the Greek calendar), as other than one who, taken all in all, was of unusual excellence of char-
acter. As in any synthesis, any organization, subordinate facts must be viewed in their relation
to their center and whole, as by any law of criminal procedure acts must be judged in the light
of general character, so any rational, legal, scientific, historical estimate of Constantine must
be in view of this fact.
§ 8. Summary.
With this as center of perspective, we have a picture of Constantine with lights and shadows,
to be sure, but in the main true in its drawing and coloring. He was a man of rather more than
medium height, strongly built, with broad shoulders, thick neck, and generally athletic and well-
formed figure. His piercing eye, slightly aquiline nose, scanty reddish beard, and florid com-
plexion, together with his bright expression, made a countenance striking and even handsome.
Of great physical strength and vigor, he carried himself in a manly, self-possessed, dignified, and
serene manner, uniting a dignity which might rise at times even to hautcui-, or even incipient
arrogance, with a general and customary afilibility. His dress, like his complexion, was somewhat
florid. His mind was active, alert, intense without being somber, penetrating, sound, fairly
cultivated, and well exercised in expression by pen or word. He was animated, habile, and atten-
tive in conversation, self-possessed, steady, and calm in formal address. He was pre-eminently
a man of energy, intense and resistless, with a determination to accomplish whatever he attempted,
which rose under opposition to irresistible impetuosity, and wrought a courage which, in action,
was absolutely fearless. His ambition was limitless, but not wholly or even mainly selfish.
With his energy and ambition were united the ballast of marked prudence, patience, perse-
verance, faithfulness to details, steadfastness, and supreme self-control. He was amiable and
tactful, popular with his soldiers, and careful to please. Toward those who came into his power
he showed habitual mildness and forbearance, — a mildness so great that he was generally blamed
for it ; and toward all he showed great kindness, justice, and a generosity which verged on the
lavish. He was open to the charge of over-generosity, almost of prodigality, a good measure of
real vanity, some over-insistence on his own will and thought as the final standard of right, and
by no means free from mistakes or human weaknesses. He was a good son, husband, father, a
remarkably successful general, a tolerable legislator, and a clear-sighted, firm-willed statesman. In
his religious life he abounded in creed and confession — believing in the Trinity, the Divinity of
Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and Eternal Life, in Repentance and Faith, in love to
God, and love to man. He preached his faith on all occasions ; he practiced thanksgiving and
prayer abundantly. He regarded everything that he had or was as from God. The editor's brief
judgment is that Constantine, for his time, made an astonishingly temperate, wise, and, on the
whole, benevolent use of absolute power, and in morality, kindly qualities, and, at last, in real
Christian character, greatly surpassed most nineteenth century politicians — standing to modern
statesmen as Athanasius to modern theologians.
Ff 3
436
PROLEGOMENA.
CHAPTER III.
Writings.
§ I. Ififroduction.
Quite a number of works by this emperor-author are extant.^ They may be grouped under,
I. Oratorical writings ; 2. Letters and decrees ; 3. Laws; 4. Various.
§ 2. Oratorical Writings.
According to Eusebius ( V. C. 4. 29 ; of. 4. 55) these were very numerous, and it may well be
believed. He seems to have done much of everything he undertook at all — fighting, or learn-
ing, or building temples, or making laws, he was nothing if not incessant. He had a habit of
inflicting his orations on his court, and undoubtedly had plenty of enthusiastic hearers, as any
emperor would, and as Eusebius says he did. They seem to have been generally philosophical
with as much religion as possible worked in (/'. C. 4. 9). Not many are extant, but we have
some account of the few following :
1. Oration to the saints {Oratio ad sanctum ccetum, S. C). For this see the following
translation and Special Prolegomena.
2. Address to the Council of Niccea ifi praise of peace (Ad Syn. JVic), in Euseb. J\ C. 3. 12.
Address of welcome. He rejoices in the assembly, and exhorts them to be united, that they may
thereby please God and do a favor to their emperor.
3. Oration to the Council of Niccea, in Gelasius, Hist. Coun. Nic. i. 7. Begins with rhetorical
comparison of the Church to a temple, and ends with injunctions to observe peace and to search
the Scriptures as the authority in all points of doctrine. Appears dubiously authentic.
4. Address to the bishops on their departure from Niccea. Abstract in Euseb. V. C. 32. i.
Exhorts them to keep peace, cautions against jealousy, &c.
5. Funeral oration. A description in Euseb. V. C. 4. 55. Dwells on the immortality of the
soul, the blessings laid up for those who love God, and the ruin of the ungodly.
His method of composition is spoken of by Eusebius (F. C. 4. 29), and his manner of
delivery may be gathered from Eusebius' description of his speech at the opening of the Council
of Nicaea {V. C 3. 11). For the style of his oratorical discourses, compare remarks on the
Oration to the Saints in the Special Prolegomena.
§ 3. Letters and Edicts.
It is hard to separate between letters, edicts, and laws. A substantial autocrat, the form of
address was much the same, and the force. The extant letters are quite numerous, and those of
which we have definite or general mention, many. He seems to have been a most industrious
letter-writer. Of the extant letters a majority are undoubtedly or probably genuine. Some,
however, need more critical study than seems to have been given to them." Following is the
roughly chronological list, the works being grouped by years. The dating is taken mainly from
' It is curious that there should be no critical edition of the
collected works of so considerable a writer. A large portion of his
works are, to be sure, included in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol.
84, Paris, 1844; but this Opera Univcrsa is neither wholly com-
plete nor in any sense critical, and this seems to be the only attempt
at a collection. The works enumerated here are mostly in the edi-
tion of Migne, but not all.
2 There is of course more or less critical treatment of various
letters in critical works on Donatism or Arianism or other special
topics. Since writing the above, the exceedingly interesting analy-
sis of sources for early Donatist history, by Seeck, in Briegtrs'
Ztschr. f. Kirche7iges., 1889, has been examined. He has, like
Vijlter and Deutsch before him, admirable critical studies of certain
letters. But a systematic critical study of the Constantinian letters
as a whole seem to be still lacking.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 437
the Migne edition, Ceillier, and Valesius with sUght original study. The descriptions are of
course from the documents themselves.
I. (313 A.D.) Edict of ConshiJitine and Licinius for the restoration of the Church. In
Lact. De M. F. c. 48, and also in Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const, ed. Migne, 105-110). The
second edict of toleration. The first edict (Euseb. 8. 17; \j^c\.. De M. P. 34) can hardly be
classed among the "writings" of Constantine. This famous second edict grants full religious lib-
erty to the Christians and restoration of their property. Compare section on Acts of Tolera-
tion in Wordworth's Constantiiius.
-' iZ^Z-) Pif^i letter of Constatitine and Licinius to Anulinus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op.
Const, ed. Migne, 479-480). Restores goods to the Catholic Christians ; written about the same
time as the edict of toleration, according to Ceillier.
3- (3^3-) Second Letter of Constantine to Anulinus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 7 (Op. Const.
48 1-2). Ordering that the Catholic clergy be free from public service, that they might not be
disturbed in their worship of God.
4- (313-) Letter of Constantine to Ccecilianus. In Euseb. H.E. 10. 6 (Op. Const. 481-4).
Presents money — three thousand purses (foUes) — to be distributed according to direction of
Hosius.
5- (3^3-) Letter of Constantine to Melchiades (or Miltiades). In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op.
Const. 477- ). Having received various letters from Anulinus regarding Csecilian and the
Donatists, he summons a council at Rome to consider the matter.
6. (314.) Letter of Constantine to Ablavius {ox ^Elafius). In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 283-4
(Op. Const. 483-6) . The result of the council at Rome not having proved final, he summons
the Council of Aries.
7. (314.) Letter of Constantine to Chrestus {Crescentius) , bishop of Syracuse. In Euseb.
H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. 485-8). Invites to the Council of Aries.
8. (314.) Letter of Constantine to the Bishops after the Coiincil of Aries. In Optat. Mon.
vet. p. 287-8 (Op. Const. 487-90). Contains gratulations, reprobations of obstinate schismatists,
and exhortations to patience with such obstinateness. It is full of religious expressions, and if
genuine, is a most interesting exhibition of Constantine's religious position at this time, but it
looks suspicious, and probably is not genuine.
9. (314.) Letter of Constantine and Licinius to Probianus, the Proconsul of Africa. In
Augustine, Ep. 88 (ed. Migne ^t^ [1865] 3045), and also in Contr. Cresc. (43 [1861] 540, also
in Op. Const, and tr. Engl, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, i, p. 370). Orders that
the Donatist Ingentius be brought to his court. One text adds Maximianus or Maximus in
place of Maximus as epithet of Constantine.
10. (314 or 315.) Letter of Constantine to the Donatist Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p.
290 (Op. Const, ed. Migne [1844] 490). As the Donatists were not yet satisfied, he summons
them to meet Caecilian, and promises if they convict him in one particular, it shall be as if in all.
II. (315.) Letter of Constantine to Celsus. In Optat. Mon. vet p. 291 (Op. Const. 489-90).
In reply to letter mentioning disturbances of the Donatists, he hints that he expects to go shortly
to Africa and settle things summarily.
12. (315.) Fragmejit of a Letter of Constantine to Eumalius Vicarius. In Augustine's
Contr. Cresc. 3. 71 (ed. Migne 43 [1861] 541 ; also Op. Const. 491-2). An extract of six lines,
in which he says Csecilianus was entirely innocent.
13' (316 or 317.) Letter of Constantine to the bishops and people of Africa. O'^Xz.X.. Mon.
vet. p. 294 (Op. Const. 491-2). He has tried every way to settle the Donatist disturbances
in vain, and now leaves them to God and advises patience.
14. (323.) First Letter of Constantine to Euscbius. In Euseb. V. C. 2.46; Theodoret, i.
14; Socr. I. 9 (Op. Const. 491-4). Empowers the repairing, enlarging of old, and building of
new churches.
438 PROLEGOMENA.
15. (323 A.D.) Law of Cons tan tine respecting piety toward God and the Christian Religion
(Ad prov. Pal.). In Euseb. V. C. 2. 24-42 ; abstr. in Soz. i. 8 (Op. Const. 253-282). This long
edict, addressed to the inhabitants of Palestine, contains an exposition of the prosperity which attends
the righteous and the adversity which comes to the wicked, followed by edict for the restitution
of confiscated property, the recall of exiles, and various other rectifications of injustices. This
is the copy, " or letter," sent to the heathen population of the empire.
16. (324.) Constantinc's edict to the people of the easterji provinces concerning the error
of polytheism, o^c. (Ad. prov. Or). In Euseb. V. C. 48-. This letter, written in Latin
and translated by Eusebius, begins with "some general remarks on virtue and vice," touches on
the persecutions and the fate of the persecutors, expresses the wish that all would become Chris-
tians, praises God, and exhorts concord.
1 7. (323 or 324.) Letter of Constantine to Alexander the Bishop and Arius the Presbyter. In
Euseb. V. C. 2. 64-72; Gelas. 2. 4; Socr. i. 7 (Op. Const. 493-502). Expresses his desire for
peace, his hope that they might have helped him in the Donatist troubles, his distress at finding
that they, too, were in a broil, his opinion that the matters under discussion are of little moment,
and what he thinks they are. He exhorts to unanimity, repeats his opinion that the matters
are of little moment, mentions his " copious and constant tears," and finally gets through.
iS. (324-5.) Letter to Porphyrins (Optatian). In Migne, /iz/r^?/. Lat. 19 [1846] 393-394
and in various editions of Optatian. This letter to Porphyrins or Optatian was on the occasion of
the sending of a poem by the latter for his vicennalia. It expresses his pleasure and his disposi-
tion to encourage the cultivation of belles Icttres. Compare note on Optatian under sources.
19. (325.) Letter of Constantine the King, summoning the bishops to Niccca. In Cowper,
Syriac Misc., Lond. 1841, p. 5-6, This is translated from a Syriac MS. in the British Museum,
written in 501. Gives as reason for the choice of Niccea the convenience for the European
bishops and " the excellent temperature of the air." This, if genuine, is the letter mentioned
by Eusebius, V. C, but it looks suspicious.
20. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the churches after the Council of Niccca. In Euseb. F. C 3.
17-20; Socr. I. 9 (Op. Const. 501-506). Dwells on the harmonious result, especially respecting
the Easter controversy, and commends to the bishops to observe what the Council has decreed.
21. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the church of Alexandria. In Socr, i. 9 (Op. Const.
507-510). Expresses great horror of the blasphemy of Arius, and admiration for the wisdom of
the more than three hundred bishops who condemned him.
22. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Arius and the Arians. In "Cone. 2. 269." A long
and rather railing address against Arius.
23- (325-) Letter of Consta7itine to the churches. In Socr. Li. E. i. 9. A translation of
a Syriac translation of this, written in 501, in Cowper, Syriac Misc., Lond. 1861, p. 6-7. Against
Arius and the Porphyrians, and threatens that any one who conceals a work of Arius shall be
punished with death.
24. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the Nicoinedians against Eusebius and Theognis. In
Gelas. 3. 2; Theodoret, i. 20; Soz. i. 21 (Op. Const. 519-524). A theological discussion
partly of the relation of Father and Son, and an attack on Eusebius of Nicomedia.
25- (325.) Letter to Theodotus. In Gelas. 3. 3 (Op. Const. 523-524). Counsels him to take
warning by what has happened to Eusebius (of Nicomedia) and Theognis, i.e. banishment, and
get rid of such evil influence, if any, as they may have had on him.
26. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Macarius. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 30-32 ; Theodoret,
I. 16. Directs the erection of a peculiarly magnificent church at the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.
27. (330.) Letter of Constantine to the Numidian Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 295 (Op.
Const. 531-532). Concerns a church taken possession of by schismatists.
28. (332.) Letter of Constantine to the Antiochians. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 60 (Op. Const.
533-). Exhorts them not to persist in their effort to call Eusebius from Caesarea to Antioch.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 439
29. (332 A.D.) Letter of Constantine to the Synod of Tyre deprecating the removal of Euscbius
from Ccesarea. In Euseb. V. C. 362 ; Theodoret, 1.27 (Op. Const. 543-546).
30. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Eusehius. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 61 (Op. Const.
537-540). Commends Eusebius for having declined the call to Antioch.
31. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Alacariiis and the rest of the /bishops in Pales-
tine {to Eusebius'). In Euseb. V. C. 3. 52-53 (Op. Const. 539-544). Directs the suppression
of idolatrous worship at Mamre.
32. (332.?) Edict against the heretics. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 64-5. Against Novatians,
Valentinians, IMarcionites, Paulians, Cataphrygians who are forbidden to assemble, and whose
houses of worship are to be given to the Catholic party.
33. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Sapor, King of the Persians. In Euseb. 4. 9-13;
Theodoret, i. 24 (Op. Const. 545-552). Is mainly a confession of faith commending the Persian
Christians to the special care of their king.
34. (333.) Letters of Constantine to Antonius, the monk, and of Antonius to him. are men-
tioned in Athanasius, i. 855 (Op. Const. 551-552). Constantine and his sons write as to a
father. Antony grudgingly replies with some good advice for them to remember the day of
judgment, regard Christ as the only emperor, and have a care for justice and the poor.
35. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius in praise of his discourse concerning Easter.
Eusebius, V. C. 4. 35 (Op. Const. 551-554) praises the discourse and asks for more.
36. {^^iZli-) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius on the preparation of the copies of the
Scriptures. In Euseb. V. C 4. 36; Theod. i. 15; Socr. i. 9 (Op. Const. 553-554). Orders
fifty copies with directions as to style.
37- (335-) Fragment of the first letter of Constantine to Athanasius. In Athan. Apol. ;
Socr. I. 27 (Op. Const. 553-556; Tr. Engl, in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1843, p. 89). The
letter summoning to the Council of Tyre, but only a half-dozen lines remain. This bids him
admit all who wish to enter the church.
38. (335.) Letter of Constantine to the people of the Alexandrian Church. In Athan.
Apol. c.Ar. c. 61 (Op. Const. 559-562 ; abstract in Soz. 2. 31 ; Tr. Engl, in Athan. Llist. Tracts,
Oxf. 1850, p. 90-92). Is a general lamentation over the dissensions of the Church, with expres-
sion of confidence in Athanasius.
39. (335.) Second Letter of Constantine to Athanasius. Athan. ^/c"/. (Op. Const. 555-558).
Expresses his reprobation of the false accusations of the Meletians against Athanasius,
40. (335.) Letter of Constantine to Joannes the Meletian. Athan. Apol. (Op. Const.
557-560). Congratulates on his reconciliation with Athanasius,
4^- (335-) Letter of Constantine to Arius. In Socr. i. 25 (Op. Const, 561-562), Invites
Arius to visit him — the famous visit where he presented a confession of faith claimed to be in
conformity with that of Nicsea,
42. (335.) A Letter to Dalmatius is mentioned by Athanasius, Apol. 5. 13, but not preserved
(Op. Const. 563-564; Tr. Engl, in Athan. LList. Tracts, Oxf. 1850, p. 94). It required him
to make judicial enquiry respecting the charge against Athanasius of the murder of Arsenius.
43. (335-) Celebrated Letter of Constantine concerning the Synod of Tyre. In Euseb. V. C.
3. 42 (Op, Const. 561-564). Exhorts the bishops to give zeal to fulfilling the purpose of the
synod in the restitution of peace to the Church.
44. (335-) Letter to the Bishops assembled at Tyre. In Socr. H. E. i. 34, and in Soz. H. E.
2. 28, Summons them to come to him at Constantinople and give account of their proceedings.
Besides these there are the clearly spurious :
1. Letter of Helena to Constantine (Op, Const. 529-530).
2. Letter of Constantine in response to Helena (Op. Const. 529-532).
3. Treaty of peace between Constantine, Sylvester and Tiridates (Op. Const. 579-582). On
440 PROLEGOMENA.
Tiridates compare various sources in Langlois Col. des historiens de . . . rArmenie, and for litera-
ture respecting their authenticity, his note on p. 103.
4. Edict of Constajitine to Pope Silvester (Op. Const. 567-578), The famous Donatian which
first appeared in Pseudo-Isidore, and for which see under The Afythical Constantitie, p. 442-3.
There are also quite a large number of letters mentioned with more or less description, and
a " multitude of letters " ( V. C. 3. 24) of which there is no specific knowledge. Of the former
may be mentioned that to the inhabitants of Heliopolis, one to Valerius (or Valerianus or Verinus)
(Augustine, Ad Donat. p.c. c. 33) ; one to the Couiicil of Tyre, asking them to hasten to Jeru-
salem ( V. C. 4. 43 ; Soz. 2, 26) ; and one acknowledging the copies of the Scriptures prepared
at his order, through Eusebius (K C. 4, 37).
§ 4. Laws.
The numerous laws are collected in the edition of Migne {^Patrol. Lat. 8. p, 93-400), mainly
from the Theodosian code. They are in the opinion of Eutropius (10. 8) "many," "some
good and equitable, but most of them superfluous, and some severe" (cf. under Character).
Many of them show the author's tendency to declamation, but taken all in all they are business-
like and do credit, in the main, to their author's heart, and even, though less conspicuously, to his
head. For more specific account, compare the laws themselves as collected in Migne, the relat-
ing passages in Wordsworth and Ceillier, standard and annotated editions of the codes, and
special treatises, such as Balduin, De leg. eccl. et civ. 1 737.
§ 5. Various.
Besides the more formal works mentioned above, various conversations, sayings, bon mots,
prayers, &c., are preserved, among which may be mentioned :
1 . Memoirs of himself, of which no portion is extant. Writings of Constantine are mentioned
by Lydus (p. 194, 226), but whether the writings referred to deserve the title given by Burck-
hardt it is hard to say.
2. A form of prayer given by Constantine to his soldiers ( F. C. 4. 20).
3. His address when the memorials of contendents, at Council of Nicaea, were brought to
him (Soz. I. 17).
4. 77;.? conversation with Acesius, for which Socrates vouches, closing, " O Acesius, set up a
ladder, and do you alone climb up to heaven."
5. His rebuke to the courtier concerning covetousness ( F. C. 4. 30).
6. His atiswer when told his statues had been stoned, " Strange, but I feel no wound "
("Chrysost. Ad Pop. Ant.'').
7. His appeal to the bishops, requesting them to confer upon him the rite of baptism (K C.
4. 62).
8. His Thanksgiving aiter baptism and testimony (K C. 4. 63).
In general, his writings were composed in Latin, and translated into Greek by those appointed
for this special purpose {F. C 4. 32). His general style is rhetorical, rather profuse, and declam-
atory, abounding in pious allusion and exhortation, as well as philosophical quotation and reflec-
tion. His works are interesting to study and not without a touch here and there of genuine
literary interest. A remark on friendship, for example, unless it be a product of his habit of bor-
rowing the thoughts of other men more or less directly, is delightful and most quotable. " For
it often happens," he says, " that when a reconciliation is effected by the removal of the causes
of enmity, friendship becomes even sweeter than it was before " (Const, to Alex, and Ar. in
v. C. 2. 71).
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 441
CHAPTER IV.
The Mythical Constantine.
The many legends which have attached themselves to the name of Constantine are valuable
chiefly as curiosities, and can be treated here only in specimens. A few of the more interesting
and important are the following :
I. Constantine and his Motho- Helena.
A little anonymous work of some thirty pages, edited by Heydenreich from a fourteenth-century
manuscript, was published under this title in 1879, and has drawn forth an astonishing amount of
literature for so slight a thing. It has little value except as an illustration of mediaeval romance,
though Coen seems to think the honor of having introduced it into literature enough to warrant
the expenditure of a good deal of pains in vindicating his claim to it. The story is written with
tolerable art, and nms, abbreviated, something as follows :
Helena, daughter of a noble family of Treves, came on a pious journey to Rome. The
Emperor Constantius, crossing a bridge of the Tiber, saw Helena among other pilgrims. Struck
with her beauty, he arranged that she should be detained by force at the inn where she stayed,
when her fellow-pilgrims returned to Gaul. The emperor then constrained her by force, but,
seeing the great grief which his act had caused, gave her a certain ornament of precious stones
and his ring, as a sort of pledge, and went away. She did not venture to return to her country,
but remained at Rome with the son who was born to her, representing that her Gallic husband
was dead. This son, Constantine, grew up pleasing, handsome, and versatile. Certain merchants,
seeing his excellent quality, formed a scheme of making money by palming him off on the
emperor of the Greeks as a son-in-law, representing him to be a son of the Roman emperor.
The scheme was carried out, and the merchants after some time embarked again for Rome,
with the Constantine and the princess, and much treasure. Toward the end of their journey they
stopped over night at a little island. In the morning the young people awoke to find they had
been deserted by the merchants, and Constantine in great grief confessed the deception which
had been practiced. To this the princess replied that she cared little who he was or his family,
since he was himself and her husband. After a few days of short rations they were taken by
passing voyagers to Rome, where they joined Helena, and having purchased a house with the
proceeds from the sale of certain valuables which the princess had kept with her, they went to
hotel-keeping. Constantine took naturally to military life, and at tournaments surpassed every
one else so far as to arouse astonishment and inquiry. The emperor would not believe him a
poor and friendless man, and had his mother called. After much vigorous evasion the truth
came out, confirmed by the ring which the emperor had given Helena. Constantius first had
the merchants put to death, and gave all their property to Constantine. Then a treaty was made
with the emperor of the East, and Constantine was recognized as heir to the empire.
A more wildly unhistorical historical novel could hardly have been written even by a Muhlbach.
For further account, see under Literature especially articles by Heydenreich and by Coen.
2. Constantine the Soji of a British Princess.
Duke Coel of Colchester, say the old chronicles, by an insurrection became king. The
Senate, rejoiced at the overthrow of an enemy, sent Constantius to Britain. Coel, fearing, sent
ambassadors to meet him, gave hostages, and shortly died. Constantius was crowned, married
Helena, daughter of Coel, the most beautiful, cultivated, and educated woman of her time. By
her he had a son, Constantine, afterwards called the Great. This is in substance the account of
Geoffrey of Monmouth (5. 6) and Pierre de Langloft (i, p. 66-7). The story is mentioned by
442 PROLEGOMENA.
Henry of Huntington (Bk. I. 37), who perhaps wrote before Geoffrey (in 1137 [?]), and Richard
of Cirencester (2. i. 33), Waurin (Vol. I. Bk. 2. 43) makes " Choel " Count of Leicester, but in
general is identical with Geoffrey. The famous Brut of Layamon (ed. Madden, 2 [1847] p. 35)
is translated with amplifications from Wace's Brut, and this in turn from Geoffrey. This makes
Coel Earl of Gloucester. The Eulogium Hist, calls Helena (i. 337) daughter of a British king,
but also concubine, though elsewhere (2, p. 267) she is wife according to the conventional story.
It is also mentioned by many others ; e.g. Voragine, Golden Legend. It is interesting that this
legendary father of Helena is supposed (Hayden, Index to Eulogium, p. 45, and Giles, note on
Geoffrey, p. 162) to be the same as "Old King Cole, the merry old soul," making Constantine
thus the grandson of the Mother Goose hero.
3. Constantine' s Leprosy; LLeaiing and Baptism by Silvester.
This tale is one of the most frequently found. The earliest account is said to be that of the
Acts of Silvester. Some of the many who repeat it are Ephraem, Cedrenus, Zonaras. The fol-
lowing account is mainly from Glycas, p. 461-462.
When Constantine was fighting against Maxentius, after he had seen the sign of the cross, he
was victorious. Then, forgetting, he was conquered, and grieving, he fell asleep and had a vision
in which the blow of a switch on his nostrils brought blood which flowed down on his linen tunic
in the form of a cross. Seeing this, he was filled with penitence, and became again victorious.
Being led away a second time into idolatry through his wife Fausta, he was divinely afflicted with
leprosy. The priests prescribed a bath in the blood of infants, and it was ordered ; but when
he heard the lamentations of the mothers, he said it was better to suffer than that so many infants
should perish. Therefore the apostles, Peter and Paul as some say, appeared to him and told
him Silvester would cure him, as he did. There are many varieties of the story and various details
as to baptism, but in general the whole series of stories regarding his baptism at Rome centers in
this story, and gratitude for this cure is the supposed occasion of the famous donation of Con-
stantine. In this the circumstances of the miracle are given at length, — the words of the
apostles, Silvester's identification of them as apostles by i)ortraits, the immersion, and subsequent
instruction.
4. Donation of Constantine. >
This most remarkable of forgeries for its practical effect on world-history has been the subject
of endless discussion. It is, in brief, a supposed grant to the Pope of Rome, Silvester, of certain
sweeping privileges in recognition of the miracle he has wrought. The edict gives a long confes-
sion of faith followed by an account of the miracle and mention of the churches he has built.
Then follow the grants to Silvester, sovereign Pontiff and Pope of Rome, and all his successors
until the end of the world, — the Lateran palace, the diadem, phryginus, the purple mantle and
scarlet robe, imperial scepters, insignia, banners and the whole imperial ]:)araphernalia, as well as
various clerical privileges and pretty much the whole world to govern. It is impossible here even
to represent in outline the history of this extraordinary fiction. Composed not earlier than the
latter part of the eighth century (Martens et alt. p cent. ; Graucrt, 840-850 ; Hauck, Bonncau,
752-757 ', Langen, 778, &c. ; Friedrich ace. to Secberg, divides into an earlier [653] and a later
[753] portion), it early came to be general, though not unquestioned, authority. In 1229-1230
a couple of unfortunates who ventured to doubt its authenticity were burned alive at Strasburg
(Documents communicated by Ristelhuber to Bonneau p. 57-58). Not many years after, Dante
seems (////. 19. 115) to have taken its authenticity for granted; and although there is a possible
doubting {De Monarch. 4. 10), he does not venture to dispute this. He denies, however, Con-
stantine's power or right to give, if he did give. In modern times the fictitious character of the
document is recognized by Protestants and Catholics alike, and the discussion, so vigorous for-
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 443
merly, over this authenticity has narrowed itself chiefly to a discussion of tlie place (France or
Rome) and date (653-753, ninth century) and possible author. The discussion over these points
has been lately renewed and is being carried on with animation. Among the later monographs
are those of Martens (1SS9) and Friedrich (1889, not at hand). The latest treatise at hand is
that of Seeberg in the Theol. Literaturbl. of Jan. 17. 24. 31 of the current year. For farther
select literature, compare Vcrzcichniss in Martens ; for sources, the chapters of Martens and Preface
of Bonneau ; for older literature, Muensch. p. 96-97, and m general the Literature of Constantine,
in this volume, althougli no attempt has been made to exhaust the literature of this sub-topic
there. Treatises on the Donation will be found under the names of Albani, Altus, Arrhenius,
Bachmann, Bayet, Bonneau, Brunner, Chaulnes, Colombier, Cusa, Friedrich, Genelin, Grauert,
Hauck, Hildebrand, Jacobatius, Kaufman, Kriiger, Martens, Muench, Rallaye, Scheffer-Boi-
chorst, Seeberg, Steuchus, Tacut, Valla, Walther, Wieland, Zeumer.
5. Dream concerning the Founding of Constantinople.
"As Constantine was sleeping in this city [Byzantium], he imagined that there stood before
him an old \voman whose forehead was furrowed with age ; but that presently, clad in an imperial
robe, she became transformed into a beautiful girl, and so fascinated his eyes by the elegance of
her youthful charms that he could not refrain from kissing her ; that Helena, his mother, being
present, then said, ' She shall be yours forever ; nor shall she die till the end of time.' The
solution of this dream, when he awoke, the emperor extorted from heaven, by fasting and alms-
giving. And behold, within eight days, being cast again into a deep sleep, he thought he saw
Pope Silvester, who died some little time before, regarding his convert with complacency, and
saying, ' You have acted with your customary prudence in waiting for a solution from God of
that enigma which was beyond the comprehension of man. The old woman you saw is this city,
worn down by age, whose time-struck walls, menacing approaching ruin, require a restorer. But
you, renewing its walls, and its affluence, shall signalize it also with your name ; and here shall
the imperial progeny reign forever ' " (William of Malmesbury, Chronicle, tr. English. Lond.
1847, p. 372-3. The final section, which instructs Constantine how to lay out the city, is omitted).
This is taken by the Chronicler from Aldhelm's (d. 709) de laudibus virginitatis (c. 52, ed.
Giles, 1844, p. 28-29), where, however, instead of kissing her, he much more appropriately
" clothes her with his mantle, and puts his diadem adorned with pure gold and brilliant gems on
her head." It is given also by Ralph de Diceto (ed. Stubbs, Lond. 1876), 74-75, and probably
by many others.
6. Voyage of Helena.
A matter-of-fact account of things which are not so, given in Hakluyt's Voyages, 2 (1810),
p. 34, is worth giving in the words of the translator :
" Helena Flavia Augusta, the heire and onely daughter of Coelus, sometime the most excellent
king of Britaine, by reason of her singular beautie, faith, religion, goodnesse, and godly Maiestie
(according to the testimonie of Eusebius) was famous in all the world. Amongst all the women
of her time there was none either in the liberall arts more learned, or in the instruments of
musike more skilful!, or in the divers languages of nations more abundant than herselfe. She
had a naturall quicknesse of wit, eloquence of speech, and a most notable grace in all her
behaviour. She was scene in the Hebrew, Greeke, and Latin tongues. Her father (as Virum-
nius reporteth) had no other childe, . . . had by her a sonne called Constantine the great, while
hee remained in Britaine . . . peace was granted to the Christian churches by her good meanes.
After the light and knowledge of the Gospel, she grew so skilfull in divinity that she wrote and
composed divers bookes and certaine Greeke verses also, which (as Ponticus reporteth) are yet
extant . . . went to Jerusalem . . . lived to the age of fourscore years, and then died at Rome the
444 PROLEGOMENA.
fifteenth day of August, in the yeere of oure redemption 337. . . . Her body is to this day very
carefully preserved at Venice."
7. The Finding of the Cross.
It is said in a certain " tolerably authentic chronicle," according to Voragine, that Constantine
sent his mother Helena to Jerusalem to try to find the cross on which our Lord was crucified.
When she arrived, she bade all the Jewish Rabbis of the whole land gather to meet her. Great
was their fear. They suspected that she sought the wood of the cross, a secret which they had
promised not to reveal even under torture, because it would mean the end of Jewish supremacy.
When they met her, sure enough, she asked for the place of the crucifixion. When they would
not tell, she ordered them all to be burned. Frightened, they delivered up Judas, their leader
and instigator, saying that he could tell. She gave him his choice of telling or dying by starvation.
At first he was obstinate, but six days of total abstinence from food brought him to terms, and on
the seventh he promised. He was conducted to the place indicated, and in response to prayer,
there was a sort of earthquake, and a perfume filled the air which converted Judas. There was a
temple of Venus on the spot. This the queen had destroyed. Then Judas set to digging vigor-
ously, and at the depth of twenty feet, found three crosses, which he brought to Helena. The
true cross was tested by its causing a man to rise from the dead, or according to others, by heal-
ing a woman, or according to others, by finding the inscription of Pilate. After an exceedingly
vigorous conversation between the devil and Judas, the latter was baptized and became Bishop
Cyriacus. Then Helena set him hunting for the nails of the cross. He found them shining like
gold and brought them to the queen, who departed, taking them and a portion of the wood of
the cross. She brought the nails to Constantine, who put them on his bridle and helmet, or
according to another account, two were used in this way, and one was thrown into the Adriatic Sea.
It is interesting to trace the melancholy consequences of this particular enterprise of Constan-
tine's in the sad death of St. Cyriacus n^e Judas. The Emperor Julian, the apostate, " invited "
him to sacrifice to idols. When he refused, melted lead was poured into his mouth ; then an iron
bedstead was brought, on which he was stretched, while a fire was built underneath and the
body of the martyr larded with salt and fat- The saint did not budge, and Julian had a deep
well dug, which was filled with venomous serpents. But contact with the saint killed the ser-
pents, and a cauldron of boiling oil succeeded. Julian was so angry at the alacrity and cheerful-
ness of the saint's preparations for this bath, that he killed him with a blow of his sword. There
is some consolation in the thought of this premature death, in the fact that, unless his claim that
he was nephew to Stephen, the Proto-martyr, be disallowed, he had reached a ripe old age of two
hundred and fifty years or thereabouts.
The literature on this legend is very great. The finding of the cross is mentioned as early as
Cyril of Jerusalem (ab. 347-350), within twenty-five years of the visit of Helena recorded by
Eusebius {V. C. 3. 26), and with great frequency afterwards. The failure of any mention by
Eusebius seems, however, conclusive against any finding, or pretended finding, at the time of
Helena's famous visit, though the contrary is acutely argued by Newman. The finding and use
of the nails is often separated from the other, and is found in many of the sources on Constantine.
But even those who believe in the miracle of the finding of the cross will hardly vouch for the
story in the above form, which is substantially that of Voragine.
Compare Sinker's article, Cross, Finding of, in Smith and Chcctham, Diet, i (1880), 503-506 ;
Jameson, ///>/. </ Our Lord, 2 (1872) 385-391; Newman, Essays on Miraeles (Lond. 1875)
287-326 ; and especially Voragine, whom see under Soiirees. Under the article Helena, in Smith
& W. is a sub-article by Argles on the Invention of the Cross, which gives an admirable abstract
of the sources in order.
These examples of the stories which have gathered around the name of Constantine do not
CONSTANTINK THE GREAT. 445
begin to exhaust the Ust. The interesting tales of the sword of Constantine presented to Athel-
stan {Reg. Maims, i, 1879, p. 55, 468; Eul. Hist. 3, 1863, p. 12), his conversion through
remorse, and the whole series of allusions and stories in mediaeval fiction and poetry must be
passed here. If any one has the curiosity to follow them up, he will find the references in the
articles of Heydenreich a good guide to literature. A few stories, like that of Constantine and
Tiridates, one hesitates to class among the wholly fictitious (compare, under Sources^ Agathan-
gelos, Zenobius, and Faustus).
CHAPTER V.
Sources and Literature.
§ I. hitroduction.
The insertion in such a work as this of what seems almost technical in its character has this
twofold purpose : first, to give a glimpse of the grounds of our knowledge of Constantine, with a
view of how far and in what directions it has been worked out through literature ; second, to
serve the expressed purpose of this series, of encouraging farther study in its lines. The very
knowledge of what the sources are, and their character, apart from any special study of them,
gives a width of horizon and definiteness of conception to the general student, which can hardly
be gotten in any other way ; while for any one who plans farther study in any line, it is of first
importance to find the what and where of his material.
§ 2. Sources.
Remembering the class of students for which the series is chiefly intended, effort has been
made to refer to translations of sources where they are at hand, and to refer to the best accessible
English authorities on them. But the plan has been to refer to the source itself in the edition
actually used, and for literature on them to choose the best for ready reference. Both editions
and authorities on sources are therefore selections, usually from many, of such as seem most
directly useful. The intention has been to guide to all frequently mentioned sources, whether
they were of great value or not, since a useless one costs often quite as much trouble to hunt up
and find useless, as a good one to use. It is hardly to be hoped that all the sources often
referred to have been gathered, but the following list represents pretty much all that are worth
mentioning, and some which are not.
I. luscriptions, coins, medals, &'c.
In some sense these are the most reliable of sources, in spite of counterfeits. A large number will be found col-
lected in Clinton. For farther critical study, compare the collections, great and small; for which, with the matter
of inscriptions in general, see Ilicks, E. L., and Hiibner, E., in the Encyclopedia Britaiinica, 13 (iSSi) 121-
133; and Babington, in Smith and Cheetham, i (18S0) 841-862. Monographs on those relating to Constantine
will be found under the names, Cavedoni, Cigola, Eltz, Freherus, Garucci, Harduin, Penon, Revellot, Valois,
Westphalen, Werveke, in the Literature of this volume.
2. La7t)S.
These, with their dates, their official nature, their fullness and variety, are primary, and are the only sources
recognized by some. They are embodied in the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, and collected from these are
edited in Migne, Patrol. Latina, Vol. 8. See under Writings of Constantine, above.
3. Other Writings by Constatttine.
See under Wriiitigs, above, p. 436. With this might perhaps be included also writings to Constantine, like that
of Anulinus in Augustinus, Ep. 88.
4. General Literary Sources.
Taking in general chronological order, without attempting the impossibility of fixing the exact chronological
place, the first group of contemporary sources is that of the Panegyrists (for collected editions, see Engelmann).
446 PROLEGOMENA.
It was a serious mistake, now recognized, to pass them by as worthless. Like all authentic documents, they
have a minimum residuum of undoubted material, which is larger or smaller according to the critical acumen of
the investigator. In the case of these, however inflated or eulogistic they may be, the circumstances under which
they were spoken give a considerable value.
(1) Iiicc7-ti nnctoris Panegyric us J\Iaximia7io ct Constantino dictus (^Paneg. 307). In Migne, Patrol. Lat.
8 (1844), 609-620. Pronounced at celebration of marriage of Constantine and Fausta, a.d. 307. Besides having
the great value of being contemporary evidence, the author shows a certain ingenuity in enlarging on the virtues
of the young Constantine, who had few deeds to show, and on the deeds of Maximian, who had few virtues, and
has therefore a certain discernible modicum of truth.
Compare the Monitum in Migne, Ramsay's article on Drepaniits, in Smith, Diet. 1073-4, and references
under Eumenius.
(2) Eumenius (310-31 i). (a) Panegyric {Panegyricns Constantino Angnsto). In Migne, Patrol. Lat.
8 (1S84), 619-640. {h) Thanksgiving Oration (^Gratiaritin Actio Constantino Augustd). In Migne, Patrol.
Lat. 8 (1S44), 641-654. Eumenius flourished during the reigns of Constantius, with whom he was in high favor,
and Constantine. He was head of the school at Autun. The Panegyric was delivered at Treves, in 310. The
authorship of Eumenius has been unwarrantably questioned, on the ground that the flattery and exaggeration of the
work are not consistent with his taste and sense; but it would seem that both his exaggeration and his taste have
been themselves exaggerated. His praise is hardly more "outrageous" than panegyrics were wont to be, — or are,
for that matter; and so far from being "worthless," there is a peculiar deal of interesting, untjuestionable, and
primary historical evidence. Still, his taste and veracity are not much above that of modern eulogists of living or
dead emperors and politicians. The Gratiariim Actio is the official oration of thanks to Constantine in behalf
of the citizens of Autun, on account of favors shown them. It was pronounced at Treves in 311.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Diet. 2 (1859), 92; the Prooemium, in ed. Migne, 619-622; also for editions,
Ramsay, article Drcpanins, in Smith, Diet. i. 1073-4; and for literature, Chevalier. For general account of
the Panegyrists, see this article on Drepanius.
(3) Lncerti Panegyricns Constantiiio Augiisto (Paneg. 313). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 653-670.
This is usually ascribed to Nazarius, on the ground of style. It was spoken at Treves in 313, and relates mainly to
the war with Maxentius. Various details relating to this are of such nature and form as to suggest again that the
author is the same as that of the 321 Paneg., — Nazarius.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Diet. 2 (1859), 1145; the Prooemium in ed. Migne, &c., and literature as under
Eumenius, above.
(4) Nazarius. (321) Panegyric (^Panegyricns Constantino Atignsto dictus'). In ed. Migne, Patrol. LmI.
8 (1844), 581-608. Nazarius is mentioned by Jerome as a distinguished rhetorician. This oration was delivered
at Rome in 321. Constantine was not present. It is superlatively eulogistic, but like the related panegyrics
contains many historical facts of greatest value.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Diet. 2 (1859), 1 145, the Monitwn, in Migne, and references under Eu-
menius.
In the midst of the period which these cover comes one of the two great Christian sources, and he is
followed by a considerable row of great and small Christians during the century.
(5) Lactantius (ab. 313-314). On the Deaths of the LWsecutors {De M. P.). Ed. Fritsche (Lips. 1842),
248-286; ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 7 (Par. 1844), 157-276; tr. in T. df T. Clark lAhrary, 22 (Edinb. 1S71),
164-21 1, and in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo and N. Y.), 300-326 [Lord Hailes' translation]. There are many
editions in collected works, and about a dozen separate, and many translations, — in all a hundred or more
editions and translations. There has been much controversy regarding the author of this work, but there is little
doubt that it was Lactantius. Ebert {Gesch. chr. LmI. Lit. i. 83) claims to have demonstrated the fact, and most
of the later writers agree. The work was composed after the edict of Constantine and Licinius, and before the
break between the two, i.e. 313-314. It was written thus in the midst of things, and has the peculiar historical value
of a contemporary document, unprejudiced by later events. It is a sort of psalm of triumph, colored by the pas-
sionate rejoicing of one persecuted over the Divine vengeance which has come upon the persecutors. " In the use
of the work the historian must employ great critical discernment " (Ebert, in Herzog, 8 [1881], 365). But granted
all his prejudice, the facts he witnesses are of first value.
Compare Ffoulkes, in Smith and Wace, 3 (1882), 613-617; Teufi'el, Hist. Rom. L.it. 2 (1873), 334; Ebert,
in Herzog, Encyk. 8 (1881), 364-366, and Gesch. chr. Lat. Lit. i (1874), 83; and for farther literature, Bibliog.
Synops. in Ante-Nicene Fathers Siippl. (1887), 77-81.
(6) EcsEniUS (ab. 260-340). \. Ecclesiastical History. 2. Constantine. 3. Chronicle.
For I and 3 compare Prolegomena of Dr. McGiffert at the beginning of this volume, and for 2, Special
Prolegomena, p. 466.
(7) OpTATiAN (fl. ab. 326). Panegyric, in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 19 (1846), 395-432; Letter to Constantine,
Jo- 39I-392- Optatian, Porfirius, or Porphyrius, as he is variously called, is dubiously Christian, composed this
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 447
poem, or series of poems, while in exile, on the occasion of the Vicennalia of Constantine. It dates, therefore,
from 325 or 326. It is a most extraordinary aggregation of acrostics, pattern poems, and every possible device
of useless, mechanical variety of form, of little value, excepting as a sort of dime-museum exhil)ition of patience and
ingenuity. It consists mainly in calling Constantine flattering names, but contains here and there an historical
suggestion. It was accompanied by a letter to Constantine, and drew one from him, and a pardon as well (Ilier-
onymus, Chfon.) ,
Compare Wilson, article Forfirius, in Smith & W. 4 (1SS7), 440; article Porphyrins, in Smith, Did. 3 (1859),
502; and for editions and literature, Engelmann.
(8) Atiianasuts (296-373). Apolo^:;}' against the Arians, and various works, ed. Bened. (1698), 2 v. in 3, f^;
ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 25-2S (1857), 4 v.; translated in part in Newman, Library of the Fathers, anil in Schaff-
Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (announced). The works of Athanasius contain various letters of Constan-
tine (see under Works') and much of primary historical value for the latter part of Constantine's reign. So far as
it goes, the matter is almost equal to official documents as source.
Compare Bright, in Smith & W. i (1S77), 179-203; Schaff, Hist, of Church, 23 (1884), 8S4-893; and for
extensive literature and editions, Chevalier and Graesse.
(9) Cyril of Jerus.\lem (ab. 315-386). Catechetical Lectures. In Migne, Patrol. Gr.T^T, (1857), espe-
cially 830. English translations in Newman, LJbrary of Fathers, 2 (183S), one ref. p. 178, Letter to Constan-
tine LL. concerjting the sign of the cross seen at yeriisalem, c. 3. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 33 (1S57), 1165-1176,
ref. on I167-1168. Two or three references only to excavation of the cross and Imilding of churches, &c., at
Jerusalem. They take significance only in the fact that Cyril is so near the time (the letter was 35 1[?], or not
many years later), and delivered his lectures in the very church which Constantine had built (sect. 14, 22).
Compare Schaff, Hist, of Church, 3 (1884), 923-925; Venables, in Smith & W. i (1877), 760-763; and
literature in Chevalier, Schaff, &c. ; also editions in Graesse, Hoffmann, &c.
(10) Ambrosius of Milan (ab. 340-397). Oration on the Death of Theodosins. In Migne, Patrol. Lot.
16 (1866), portion relating to Constantine especially, 1462-1465. Relates chiefly to the Finding of the Cross.
Compare Davies, in Smith & W. i (1S77), 91-99; also Chevalier, Engelmann, Schoenemann, &c.
(11) HiERONYMUS (Jerome) (331-420). Chrojiide. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 27 (1866). Part relating to
Constantine, 493 (497)-500. A translation and continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, who ends with the death
of Licinius. An indispensable but aggravating authority.
Compare Salmon, Eusebius, Chronicle of, in Smith & \V. 2 (1880), 348-355.
(12) AuGUSTiNUS (354-430). Ep. 43, ed. Migne, 33 (1865), 159- , §§ 4, 5, 20, &c. He gives account
of the various Donatist hearings, and speaks of having read aloud from various original documents, including the
petition to Constantine, the proconsular acts, the proceedings of the court at Rome, and the letters of Constantine.
He speaks of the hearing at Milan. Ep. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 33 (1S65), 302-309. This has the text
of letter of Anulinus to Constantine, and Constantine to Probianus. Eps. 76. 2; 93. 13-14, 16 (which contains
account of decree of Constantine that property of obstinate Donatists should be confiscated); 105. 9, 10 (not
translated); 141. 8-IO (not translated), in ed. Migne, and tr. English ed. Schaff, contain various matter on the
Donatist acts of Constantine. Ad Donatistas post collationeni, c. 33, § 56; ed. Migne, 43 (1861), 687 (important
for dates given). Contra lilt. Petil. Bk. II. ch. 92, § 205; ed. Migne, 45 (1861), 326. Tr. in Schaff, Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 580-581. Contr. Epist. Parmen. Bk. I. chs. 5-6, § lo-ll; ed. Migne, 43
(1861), 40-41. Augustine as a source is of primary value, because of the otherwise unknown sources which he
uses and quotes.
Compare Schaff, LList. of Church, 3 (1S84), 98S-1028; Maclear, in Smith & W. Diet, i (1877), 216-228.
For literature, see Schaff, Chevalier, Engelmann, and for particular literature of the Donatist portions, Hartianft,
in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 369-372; and for editions, see Schoenemann, Graesse, Brunet,
Engelmann, Schaff, Hartranft, &c.
The equally numerous series of non-Christian writers is headed, in value at least, though not in time, by
Constantine's secretary.
(13) Eutropius (4th cent.). Abridgment of Roman History, Bk. 10. Multitudes of editions and transla-
tions; the ones used are: (Paris, 1539), 63-68; transl. by Watson, (Bohn, 1S53), 527-535. Eutropius was secre-
tary to Constantine, and afterwards the intimate of Julian. His testimony, though brief, is of peculiar weight from
his position for knowing and from a certain flavor of fairness. It was early remarked (Nicephorus Gregoras) that
his praise of Constantine had peculiar force, coming from a heathen and friend of Julian. His dispraise, on the
other hand, is conditioned by the fact that he applies it only to the period after Constantine began peculiarly
to favor the Christians. He seems to be a cool, level-headed man of the world, unsympathetic with Constantine's
religion, and, writing /row this standpoint, presents a just, candid, reliable account of him.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, ZJzV^. 2 (1859), 126-127; W'atson, A^o/zV^, in his translations; also for multitudinous
editions and translations, and relatively scanty though considerable literature, Chevalier, Engelmann, Graesse,
448 PROLEGOMENA.
(14) SCRIPTORES Historic AuGUSTiE (? 2-324). Ed. Jordan and Eyssenhardt, Berol. 1864, 2 v. Contains a
few dedications to and mentions of Constantine, for which see Index.
Compare Teuffel, Hist, of Rom. Lit. tr. Wagner, 2 (Lond. 1873), 320-324.
(15) Victor, Sextus Ai relius (fl. 350-400). Ctvsars. In ed. Schottius, Antv. Plantin, 1579, p. 97-167.
Section on Constantine chiefly, 157-162. Epitome, KnU. i^-jg. Section on Constantine, p. 49-52. These works,
by different authors, have been associated since the time of the above edition with the name of Victor. The
former is by him, the latter probably by a slightly later Victor. They use the same sources with Zosimus, but
supplement him (Wordsworth). Both are interesting and important, and in Manso's judgment, final where they
agree.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Diet. 3 (1S59), 1256-1257; Thomas, article Awelius, in Bio^. Diet. (18S6),
228; Manso, Leben Const, p. 215; and scanty references in Chevalier. For editions and farther literature, see
Engelmann.
(16) PrAXAGORAS Atheniensis (4th cent.). In Photius, Cod. 62; Ed. Bekker, p. 20; ed. MUller, Fragm.
4 (1868), 2-3. Lived in reign of Constantine (Miiller, p. 2). Although a heathen (Photius, Cod. 62), he lauds
Constantine above all his predecessors. Pie wrote various works in the Ionic dialect, among others a " history of
the deeds of Constantine the Great, in two books," composed at the age of twenty-two. The fragments or resuvie
are preserved by Photius, as above. Though brief (three columns), it is a concise mass of testimony.
Compare Smith, Diet. 3. 517; also for literature. Chevalier; and for editions, the various editions of Photius
in Graesse, Ilofmann, Engelmann, &c.
(17) Calendarium Romanum Constantini Magni (350). In Petavius, Uranologium (1630), 112-119.
Written after 337, and in or before 355, probably in 355. It is authority for the birthday of Constantine, Constan-
tius, &c.
Compare Greswell, Origines Kalendariec Italicer, 4 (Oxf. 1854), 388-392.
(18) Julian THE Apostate (331-363). Civsars. Orations on Constantius and Constantimis^et pass. Ed. Paris,
1630, p. 12-96, 422; Vol. 2, 1-54, /am w. Compare also ed. Hertlein, Lips. 1875-76, 2 v. Svo. Editions and
translations are very numerous. (Compare arts, of Wordsworth and Graves; also Engelmann, Graesse, &c. The
orations which are panegyrical were delivered (Wordsworth) 355 and 358, and the Cecsars dates from shortly after his
accession (in 361). The latter is a satire which has found literary favor, the substantial purpose of which is thought
to be a suggestion that he (Julian) is much superior to all the great emperors; but which if one were to venture
a guess at its real motive, is quite as much a systematic effort to minimize by ridicule the lauded Constantine. The
laudatory words of Julian himself in his orations are quite overshadowed by the bitter sarcasms of the Caesars. As
a matter of estimate of the value of this source, there is to be remembered the bitterness of Julian's hostility to
Christianity. W'hat to Eusebius was a virtue would to Julian be a vice. In view of his prejudice, everything which
he concedes is of primary weight, while his ill-natured gossip carries a presumption of slanderousness.
Compare Schaff, Hist, of Church, 2. 40-59; Wordsworth, in Smith & W. 3. 484-525; Graves, in Smith, Diet.
644-655. Compare for endless Hterature, Wordsworth, Chevalier, Engelmann, i (1880), 476-477.
(19) Libanius, (314 or 316-391 -f). Orations. Ed. Morellus, Par. 1606-1627. Contain a few allusions of
more or less interest and historical value, for which, see ed. Morellus, Index volume 2, fol. Qqqv".
Compare Schmitz, in Smith, Diet. 2 (1859), 774-776; and for editions and literature, Chevalier, Engel-
mann, &c.
(21) Am.mianus Marcellinus (d. ab. 395). Histories. There are many editions, for which compare
Engelmann, Graesse, and Wordsworth. Among editions are ed. Valesius (1636) and ed. Eyssenhardt, Berol. 1871.
The work was a continuation of Tacitus, but the first thirteen books (including Constantine's period) are best. He
says (Bk. 15, ed. Valesius, 1636, p. 56-57) that Constantine investigated the Manichaeans and like sects through
Musonius, and gives account of the bringing of his obelisk to Rome, perhaps by Constantine (Bk. 17, p. 92-93; com-
pare Parker, Twelve Egypt. Obelisks in Rome, Oxf. 1879, p. i), and makes other mention, for which see Index
to ed. Eyssenhardt, p. 566.
Compare Wordsworth, in Smith & W. i (1879), 99-101, and for literature. Chevalier (scanty) and Engelmann,
2 (1882), 43-45 (Rich).
(22) EuNAi'ius (Anti-Christian) (ab. 347-414). Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists ; ALdesius. Ed.
Boissonade (Amst. 1822), ii)-a,() passim. Eunapius was born at Sardis about 347, and died after 414 a.d. (cf.
Miiller, Frapn. 87). He was a teacher of rhetoric, and besides this work wrote a continuation of the history of
Dexippus, extending from 270-404 a.d. Fragments of this are preserved, but none relating to Constantine.
Photius (^Cod. Tj) says that he calumniated the Christians, especially Constantine. With the fragments in Miiller,
/>-«?7«. 4 (1868), 11-56, is included also (14-15) a fragment from the Vita JEdes., relating to Sopater. The
death of Sopater and the relation of Ablavius to it is given more fully in the Vita yp.des. with various suggestive
allusions. Much of his history is supposed to be incorporated in Zosimus, and this gives importance to his name,
weight to Zosimus, and light on the hostile position of Zosimus towards Constantine.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 449
Cf. Photius, Cod.'jT, Muller, /'><7;w. 4 (iS68), 7-9; Mozley, ia Smith & W. 2 (1880), 285-2S6; Schmitz,
in Smith, Did. 2 (1859), 93; also for further literature ami editions, Chevalier and Engelmann.
(23) Bemakciiius (4th cent.) was of Gusarea in Cappadocia; wrote the Ac/s of Constantinc in ten books
(Suidas, s.v. B7);uapx"'J> cf. Zonaras, p. 386). No portion is preserved. Wrote under Constantius, on whom he
is said (Libanius, Orat. ed. Reiske, p. 24) to have delivered a panegyric.
Cf. Muller, l-ragm. 4 (186S), 3; Smith, Did. i (1859), 4S2, &c.
An early but as yet valueless group is that of Syriac and Armenian sources on the (apocryphal) treaty of Con-
stantine with Tiridates.
(24) Zknoiuus OK K1.A0 (fl. ah. 324). Ilislory of Daron. French translation from Armenian in Langlois,
Coll. Hist. Arm. I (1867), 353-355- \aVc the works of the other Armenian historians, the text of this writer
has suffered more or less from corruption. lie has two mentions (p. 344 and 351) of Constantine, the latter being
an account of the treaty with Tiridates.
Compare introduction of Langlois, and literature in Chevalier.
(25) Acathanc;ki.i;s (ab. 330). Ilislory of the Reign of Tiridates and of the Preadiing of St. Gregory the Illu-
minator, c. 125-127, § 163-169; in Ada SS. Boll. Sept. VHI. 320- ; also with French translation from Armenian
in Langlois, Coll. d. hist, de VArm. p. 97-. The work extends for 226-330 a.d. The author was secretary to
Tiridates, but the work as we have it is a redaction made, however, not long after, as it was used by Moses of
Khorene. This was in turn later (seventh century?) retouched by some Greek hagiographer. This Greek form is
extant in MSS. at Florence and Paris (cf. editions above), and there is reason to suppose that the extant Armenian
is a version from this Greek form. But with its additions of arrantly apocryphal matter, it is hard to tell what is
what, and so all considerable mention of the relation of Constantine and Tiridates has been left out of the account
of Constantine's life. Yet we must hesitate to put it all down under the mythical; for Tiridates certainly had inter-
course with the Romans, and the original form of this life was certainly by a competent hand, and the matter
relating to Constantine is in part soberly historical enough.
For farther information, compare Davidson on Gregorius Illuminator, in Smith & W., Did. 2. 737-739; Intro-
duction, Langlois, p. 99-103.
(26) Faustus of Byzantium (320-392). Historical Library. French translation from the Armenian in
Langlois, Coll. d. hist. Arm. i. 201-310. There are mentions of Constantine and Tiridates in Bk. 3, chaps. 10 and
21. The work is open to some suspicions of having been tampered with, but Langlois inclines to give it a fairly
good character. If genuine, the mention of the treaty with Tiridates would nearly establish it as historical fact.
Compare Beauvois in Nouv. biog. gen, 17 (1856), 203, and Introduction of Langlois; also, literature in
Chevalier.
The writers of the following centuries are for the most part Christian, uncertain or religiously unknown,
excepting the very pronounced non-Christian who heads the list.
(27) ZosiMUS (fl. ab. 400-450). History. Ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1837), 8vo. Section on Constantine occupy-
ing Bk. 2. 8- , p. 72-106. The date of this writer has been put as early as the fourth century and as late as the end
of the fifth. It will be safe to divide extremes. He is a heathen who, on the period of Constantine, draws from an
anti-Christian and anti-Constantinian source, and who regards the introduction of Christianity as a chief cause of the
decline of the Roman Empire (cf. various passages cited by Milligan). He is prejudiced against Christianity with
the bitter prejudice of one who finds himself in a steadily narrowing minority, and he is occasionally credulous.
But he wrote in a clear, interesting style, without intentional falsifications, and was quite as moderate as the Chris-
tian writer (Evagrius, 3. 41) who calls Zosimus himself a "fiend of hell." His extended account is therefore of
great value among the sources, and especially as it is probably drawn in large measure from the earlier lost work
of Eunapius.
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W., 4 (1887), 1225-1227: Mason, in Smith, ZJeV/. 3 (1859), 1334-1335; also,
for literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, and for editions, Engelmann,
Anonymus Valesianus (fifth century). Ed. Valesius (Paris, 1636), p. 471-476. This fragment, first pub-
lished by Valesius in the above editions of Ammianus, is of the highest value for the life of Constantine. It is
evidently drawn from various sources, many of which are now lost. The compiler or writer shows a judicious-
ness and soberness which commends his statements as peculiarly trustworthy.
Compare the exhaustive examination by Ohnesorge, Der Anonymtis Valesii de Constantino. Kiel, 1885. 8vo.
(27) Stephen of Byzantium (ab. 400). Greek Cities. Venet. Aldus, 1502, fol. H. iii, s.v. Noio-o-by. The
work is a dictionary of geography, and the fact in these few lines is of first value.
Compare Smith, in Smith, Did. 3 (1859), 904-906. Chevalier, Hoffmann, etc.
(28) SozoMEN (b. ab. 400). Ecclesiastical History. Ed. Hussey, English translation, London, Bohn,
1855; newly edited by Hartranft in Schaff, Nicene and I'ost-iVice/ie Fathers, 2 (1890) [in press]. This history
covers the period 323-423 (not 439). He draws largely from Eusebius. He has been described rightly (Dowling,
VOL. I. Gg
450 PROLEGOPvlENA.
Study of Eccl. Hist. p. 31) as relatively inaccurate, rhetorical and credulous. But he works from sources, though
mainly from extant ones. For farther discussion, compare Hartranft in volume 2 of this series.
Compare also Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1S87), 722-723, and literature in Chevalier*
(29) Socrates (b. ab. 408). Ecclesiastical History. Ed. Hussey, reprinted with Introduction by Bright,
Oxf. 1878. English translation, London, Bohn, newly edited by Zenos in volume 2 of this series [in press]. This
history covers the period 306-439. It is written with general good judgment, but for Constantine adds little to
Eusebius of which it professes to be a continuation.
For farther description and discussion, compare Zenos, Milligan, in Smith & \V. 4 (1S87), 709-711, and
literature in Chevalier.
(30) Theodoret (b. ab. 393?-4S7?). Ecclesiastical History. In Migne, Patrol. Cr. 82 (1859), 879-12S0.
English translation, London, Bohn, 1854. The birth of Theodoret has been placed at various dates, 386, 387,
393, &c., and the exact time of his death (453-458) is equally uncertain. This work reaches from 324 to 429, and
is generally regarded as learned and impartial. It gives much concerning Constantine's relations to the Arian contro-
versy and incorporates many documents, which appear to be taken mainly from Eusebius' Life of Constantine.
A chief value is, it would seem, for the text of Eusebius. But his very use of documents shows care and gives value.
Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 904-919; Newman, Hist. Sketches, 2 (1876), 303-362; Schaff,
Hist, of Church, 3 (18S4), 881-S82; and literature in Chevalier; also for editions, Graesse and Hoffmann.
(31) Orosius, Paulus (ab. 417). Histories, Bk. 7, chaps. 26-28. Ed. Migne Patrol. Lat. 31 (1846), 635-
1174; section relating to Constantine occupies 1128-1137. For many editions and MSS. compare Schoenemann,
Bibl. Pair. Lat. 2 (1794), 481-507, and Engelmann, 2 (1882), 441-. It is said (Manso) that Orosius adds
nothing to existing material. This is only in part true. At all events, his value as corroboratory evidence is con-
siderable, brief as the work is.
Compare Phillott, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 157-158; Ebert, Gesch. d. chr. Lat. Lit. i (1874), 323-330, and
literature in Chevalier and Engelmann.
(32) Prosper Aquitanus (403-463 +). Chronicle. Ed. Migne, /Vz/;W. Z«/. 5 1 (1861), 535-606 (8). Por-
tion relating to Constantine, 574-576. The Chronicle extends to 444 or 455. To 326 he depends mainly on
Eusebius' Chronicle, and for the rest of our period on the continuation of Hieronymus.
Compare Phillott, in Smith cS: W. 3 (1882), 492-497; Teuffel, Hist, of Rom. Lit. 2 (Lond. 1873), 482-484;
and for literature, editions, &c.. Chevalier, Engelmann, &c,
(33) Idatius (4684-). List of Consuls (Fasti Idatiani). In W\gne, Patrol. Za/. 51 (1861), 891-914; por-
tion relating to Constantine, 907-908. Idatius lived until after 469. This work, which is not generally acknowl-
edged to be his, although quoted under his name, ends in 468. It contains brief statements of some events
under the most significant years.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Diet. 2 (1859), and literature under " Idace de Lamego," in Chevalier.
(34) Gelasius of Cvzicus (ab. 450-). History of the Council of Niccea. In Labbe, Concilia, 2 (1671),
103-286. There is also an abstract in Photius, BiM. Cod. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Cr, 103 (i860), 293-296.
Venables is probably just when he says: "His work is little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical
histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, to which he has added little but what is very doubtful
or manifestly untrue." There is a little on Constantine not in those sources, but to try to fix on any of it as
authoritative quite baffles one. Still, it is not wholly clear that he did not use sources, as well as his own imagina-
tion, in adding to the other sources. It may be said to be " of doubtful value," as source. It is not easy to see
what Venables means in saying that the third book, as we have it, gives only three letters of Constantine. This is
true; but the second book, " as we have it," gives several more.
Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 621-623.
(35) Jacobus of Sarug (452-521). Llomily on the Baptism of Constantine. Ed. Frothingham, Roma,
1882. For further information consult the extended study of Frothingham.
(25) Phii.ostorgius (b. ab. 468). English translation by Walford (Lond. Bohn, 1855), 425-528. The
original work covered the period between 300 and 425. The fragments preserved contain several interesting facts,
or fictions, relating to Constantine, some not found elsewhere. Photius and all the orthodox have always called
him untrustworthy or worse, and a very unorthodox critic (Gilibon) finds him passionate, prejudiced, and ignorant;
but it seems to l)e agreed that he used some sources not availed of by others.
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1587), 390; Dowling, Study of Eccl. Llist. p. 26-27; and literature
in Chevalier.
(26) IlESYCHius Mii.ESius (ab. 500?—). Origifts of Constantinople. In Muller, Fragttt. 4 (1868), 146-
155; also in ed. Orelli (Lips. 1820), 59-73. Hesychius, surnamed lllustris, of Miletus lived in the early part of
the sixth century. This work contains several allusions to the founding of the city of Constantine. It seems to
have been taken almost word for word in parts by Codinus.
Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 12-13; Means, in Smith, Diet. 2 (1859), 447-448; Muller,
Fragin. 4 (1868), 143-145; also literature in Chevalier, and editions and literature in Engelmann.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 451
(27) CassiodoRUS (ab. 468-561+). Tripartiti: llistcry. In Opera, cd. Garetius, I (Rotom. 1679, ful.),
b i-b 372. On Constantine, especially p. 207-243. (Same ed. in Migne, Patrol. Lai. 69 [1865], 879-1214.)
Cassiodorus was born about 468 and lived to be more than ninety-three years old. This work is an epitome of Soc-
rates, So/.omcn, and Tlieoiloret, and has no adilitional value as source. A work on the Cloths has i)een preserved
to us only in an epitome by Jordanes. See Jordanes.
Compare Young, in Smith & W. I (1S77), 416-418, or (better for this work) Ramsay, in Smith, i (1859),
623-625 ; and for literature and editions, Chevalier, Engclmann, Gracssc, etc.
(28) Lydus, JoANNKS (Laurentius) (490-550-f). De McHsUnts ; Dc Magislralibus ; De Oslcnlis, passim.
Ed. Bekker, in Corp. Ilist. Byz. (1837). Other editions of the various worlds may l)e found noticed in Graesse,
7>-tw;-, 4 (1S63), 122; Brunet, yl/</«//<7, 3 (1862), 880; Engclmann, i?//'/. scr. class, i (1880), 478-479; Hoff-
mann, Lex. He was born at Philadelphia in 490, and lived some time after 550. He was a heathen, but
respectful toward Christianity (Photius, Cod. 180). He mentions Constantine ten or a dozen times; e.g. his
foundation of Constantinople (^De 0. 21. 5), Constantine's learning and military skill (De mag. 3. 53), and
quotes (r>e tiiagislr. 3. t^t,, ed. Bonn., p. 226), Constantine's own writings.
Compare Photius, Cod. 180; Means, in Smith, Did. 2 (1859), 600; Hase, Pref. and in ed. Bekker; Joubert,
in Nouv. biog.ghi. (Iloefer), 32 (i860), 388-391; and for farther literature. Chevalier and the article of Joubert,
and Engelmann, Bihl. scr. class. I (1880), 479,
(29) Jdrdanks (or JdRNANDEs) (-55 1 ?). LListory of I he Goths, {De Getarum origine et rebus gestis). In
Cassiodorus, Opera, ed. Garetius, I (Rotom. 1679), 397-425; same ed. in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 69 (1865), 1251-
1296. This work on the Goths is said l)y its author to be an epitome of the worlc of Cassiodorus. It says
(p. 406-407) that Constantine employed Goths in his campaign against Licinius, and also in the building of Con-
stantinople. It was composed in 551 or 552 (cf. Wattenbach, DeutschlaucPs Geschichtsq. i [1877], 66).
Compare Hodgkin, in Encycl. Brit. 13 (1881), 747-749; Acland, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 431-438
(exhaustive); and alnindant literature in Chevalier, Engelmann, Wattenbach, &c.; also editions in Engelmann,
"Potthast. Bihl. hist. med. ttv. 1862, p. I02," &c.
(30) Anonymous, QUI DioNis Cassii historias continuavit (sixth century ?). 14. Licinius (18 lines) ; 15.
Constantinus (9 lines). In Miiller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 199; cf. especially Jntrod. in Midler, p. 191-192. These
were first published by Ang. Mai in Script. Vet. Nov. Call. 2, 135-, 527-, and are found also in vari-
ous editions of Dion Cassius; e.g. ed. Sturz. 9 (Spz. 1843). ^^i strongly inclines to suspect that Johannes
Antiochenus is the author, but this Miiller (p. 191) argues to be impossil)le. They are sometimes referred to
as Excerpta Vaticana. Petrus Patricius and various others have been suggested as authors, but all that is affirmed
with any assurance is that the author was a Christian. This is on the ground of Diocletianus, i (p. 19S). The frag-
ments are very brief, but contain several little facts and turns not found elsewhere.
(31) EvAGRius (5367-594+). Ecclesiastical LListory,-^. \o-\\. English translation (1709), 472-474. A vio-
lent invective against and disproval of the charges of Zosimus against Constantine and adds nothing to historical facts.
Compare MiUigan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 423-424.
(32) Procopius C.esariensis (fl. 547-565). Histories. Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1833-1838, 3 v. Two or three
slight mentions, of which tlie nearest to any account is the division of the empire by Constantine, and the
founding of Constantinople (De bel. Vand, i. i). He flourished from about 547 to 565. Whether he was
Christian or heathen is uncertain. He is characterized by peculiar truthfulness (cf. his De (vdif. i ; Praf. ed.
Bonn, V. 3, 170-, and Milligan).
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 487-488; Plate, in Smith, Diet. 3, 538-540; also for liter-
ature, Chevalier and Engelmann, i. 655; and for editions, Milligan, Plate, and the various bibliographies.
(33) Petrus Patricius (fl. 550-562). Fragtnents. In MuUer, /'rrt'^w. 4 (186S), 189. Gives account of an
embassy of Licinius to Constantine.
Compare Means, in Smith, Diet. 3 (1859), 226-227; ^^^o Chevalier and Hoffmann.
(34) Gregory of Tours (ab. 573-594). LListory of the Franks, i. 34, Ed. Ruinart (Paris, 1699), 27, &c.
(?) LListory of the Seven Sleepers, do. 1 272-1 273, &c. Liber viiracjilorum, do. 725-729. The edition of
Ruinart is reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Lat. vol. 71 (1867). In the first of these he quotes as authorities, Euse-
bius and Junius; the latter are full of legendary matter.
Compare Buchanan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 771-776; also for editions and literature, Engelmann, Chevalier,
and Graesse.
(35) Chronicon Paschale (ab. 630 A.D.). Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1832, 2 v.; section relating to Constantine
occupies vol. I, p. 516-533. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 92 (Paris, 1865). The work is a chronicle of the world from
the creation until 630. It has been thought, but on insufficient grounds (cf. Salmon), that the first part ended with
A.D. 354 and was written about that time. It is really a homogeneous work and written probably not long after
630 A.D. (Salmon). It is frequently quoted, unfortunately, as Alexandrian Chronicle (e.g. M'Clintock and Strong
Cycl). The chief value is the chronological, but the author has used good sources and presumably some not now
extant. It has something the value of a primary source of second rate,
Gg 2
452 PROLEGOMENA.
Compare Salmon, In Smith & W. I. (1S77), 509-513; Clinton, Fasii. Rom. 1 (1850), 169; Ideler, Handb.
d. Chron. 2 (1S26), 350-351, 462-463; and for literature and editions, Salmon.
(36) Anonymous Acts of Aletrophanes and Alexander (seventh century ?) , " in which is contained also a life
of the emperor Constantine the Great." In Photius, Cod. 256; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 104 (i860), 105-120. A
more complete recension of this anonymous piece was edited by Combefis, who regards it as the work of a con-
temporary, written therefore in the middle of the fourth century (cf. hisTZ/i'/. y]/<?«.p. 573, teste Fabricius). The authen-
tic details can be traced word for word, according to Tillemont, in other historians, while impossible statements
show it to be not the work of a contemporary. It seems to fall under the class of works where " What is true is
not new, and what is new is not true," but it can hardly be regarded as sufficiently determined whether or no it is
worthless.
Compare Tillemont, 7l/dV«, 7 (1732), 657; Fabricius, Bihl. Gr. 9 (1737), 124 and 498; Acta. SS. Nov. i.
(37) Johannes Antiochenus (d. 610-650). Chronological History. Fragments in MUller, 4 (1868),
535(8)-622; Fragm. 168-169, on Constantius and Galerius, and I70-I7ia, on Constantine, p. 602-603. This
writer is to be distinguished from Johannes Malalas, also known as Johannes Antiochenus. He flourished some-
where between 610-650 (MUller, p. 536). The sections relating to Constantine are in the main exactly corre-
spondent to Eutropius. It has been conjectured (MUller, p. 153S) that Eutropius and Johannes copied from a common
Greek source; but the curious error in the section on Constantine (p. 603), by which "commoda;" is converted
into a proper name, and becomes the name of the sisterwhose son Constantine put to death, shows it to have been
translated from the Latin. The work of Johannes has, however, some interesting suggestions and additions; e.g.
its paraphrase of the word " dubius " in the characterization of Constantine's conduct towards his friends.
Compare MuUer, p. 535-53S; Means, in Smith, Diet. 2 (1859), 5S7; also article of Stokes, and other
literature under Malalas.
(38) Malalas (-_z John of Antioch) (ab. 700). Chronography, Bk. 13, i-ii. Ed. Dindorf (Bonno;, 1831);
in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. (section on Constantine, p. 316-324); also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 97 (Par. 1865),
1-70. Earlier editions are, Oxf. 1691, 8°; Venice, 1733, fol. [reprint of 1691," quite useless"]. Lived about
700 (MUller, Fragm. 4 [1868], 536), or about 650 (Chevalier, 1205). He has jjeen placed as late as ninth cen-
tury (Ilody), and as early as 601 (Cave.). Nothing is known of his personal history. He is to be distinguished
from the John of Antioch in Muller's Fragm. who is earlier than Malalas. He is very credulous and inaccurate
and the section on Constantine is no exception to the rule.
Compare Prolegomena of Hody and Dindorf; Stokes, in Smith & W. 3 (1S82), 7S7-788, iSic; and farther
literature in Chevalier, Rep. 1205; Hoefer, Nouv. hiog. gen. 32 (1060), 1007, and the article of Stokes.
(39) Pseudo-Isidore (eighth cent.?). Decretals. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 130 (1853), 245-252. The
famous " Donation of Constantion," which appears here for the first time. See under The Mythical Constantine.
Compare Schaff, Hist, of Church, 4 (1885), 268-733; and for literature. Chevalier under Isidore Mercator;
also the literature of the Donation.
(40) Theophanes (758-818). Chronography. Ed. Classen, Bonn. 1839-41, 2 v. Section on Constantine
occupying vol. I, p. 10-51; also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 108 (1S6). This work "is justly regarded as one of the
most important in the whole series of Byzantine historians" (Dowling, p. 69). Theophanes was friend of Georgius
.Syncellus; and at his request (Proem, p. 5) took up the latter work at the point where he left off (Diocletian),
extending it to 811. He is an authority of judgment and weight for matters relating to his own times, and on quite
a different level of historical character from Cedrenus and Zonaras. Although of very much less value for
Constantine, he shows even here a certain historical judgment and discrimination. His book is an intelligent work
from various sources, one of which is Eusebius. He says that he has diligently examined many works, and
reports nothing on his own authority, liut on the authority of ancient historiographers and " logographers "
(Prum. p. 5).
Compare DowHng, Introd. (Lond. 1838), 69-70; Smitli, in Smith, Diet. 3. 1082-1083; Gass, in Herzog,
Real Enc. 15 (1885), 536-537; Acta sanctorum Boll. March 12; and for (extensive) literature, Chevalier.
(41) Anastasius BiBLiOTHECARiUS (d. 879). Livcs of the Roman Pontiffs. In Wigne, Patrol. Lat. I2'j-I2i
(1852). 34. S. Silvester, vol. 127, 1511-1527. Small use.
Compare Schaff, Hist, of the Church, 4 (18S5), 774-776; and for literature and editions, Chevalier and
Graesse.
(42) PiiOTIus (ninth cent.). Bibliothcca. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. vols. 103-104 (i860). Contains excerpts
from and comments on Praxagoras, Eunapius, Gelasius, Anon. Metrojih., and EuscImus, which see.
Compare .Schaff, Hist, of Church, 4 (1SS5), 636-642; Means, in .Smith, Diet. 3 (1859), 347-355.
(43) CoNSTANTiNUS PoRPHYROGENITUS(c. VII.) (fl. 911-959). De thematihus. Ed. P>ekker (Bonn. 1840),
1-64, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz.; and in ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 113 (1864), 63-140. Gives (2. 8, ed. Bonn,
p. S7~5^) account of division of the empire among his sons by Constantine. He also mentions in his De cer.
aul. J>yz. {c(\. Reiske, Bonn. 1829; ed. Migne, /Vz/r^)/. Gr. 112); e.g. the "cross of Constantine " several times
mentioned, and gives a few facts of archaeological interest. Constantinus VII. was emperor 91 1-959.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 453
Compare Plate, in Smith, Diet. i. 349-351; Coillicr, 12 (1862), 811-813; and for farther literature, Chevalier
and Engelmann, I (1880), 249; also for editions, Plate, who has admirable survey.
(44) Leo Diaconus (tenth century). ///.y^/vV^, 5. 9 and 8. 8. In cd. Ilasc (Bonn. 1828), p. 91 and 138.
Mentions the foundation of a city, the vision of the cross, the Scythian wars, antl Imrial in the Church of the Apos-
tles at Constantinople, and characterizes him as "among emperors the one renowned in story" (8. 8). For other
editions, compare Brunei, Graesse, Hoffmann, and P^ngelmann. lie lived from about 950 to at least 993. He was
used by Scylitzes (cf. Cedrenus) and perhaps Zonaras. " Style vicious," and " knowledge ... of ancient history is
slight" (Means).
Compare Means, in Smith, Z'^V^. 2 (1859), 743-744; M'Clintock and Strong, Encycl. 5 (1875), 351 ; Hasc,
Praef. ; and for literature. Chevalier.
It is by some stretching of the term that many of those dating before the year 1000 are admitted as sources.
Some contribute hardly a single fact not in other sources. This is still more true of the period following, but this
period is especially rich in sources of historical fictions — and these must be considered. So the Byzantine histo-
rians to the invention of printing are given, and some Western writings, which contain relevant matter.
(45) Zonaras, Johannes (1042-1130?). Chronicle. Ed. Migne, ratrol. Gr. 134-135 (Par. 1864). The
section relating to Constantine occupies Vol. i. 1097-1118, Bk. 13, chs. 1-4; cf. also end of Bk. 12. The ed.
Pinder, Bonn. 1841-1844, 2 v., is unfinished, containing only twelve books. It has since been edited by Din-
dorf, Lips. 1868-1875, 6 v. Bk. 13 is in Vol. 3 (1870). This work consists of eighteen books extending from
the beginning of the world until 1118. Zonaras draws, for Christian period, from Eusebius, Philostorgius, &c., with
some discernment, and so deserves a tolerably high place among the Byzantine historians (Zockler). He incor-
porates a choice variety of fables, but gives more or less facts which seem to be facts. He actually adds almost
nothing to the sources of Constantine, though there are certain facts over which one lingers a little before relegating
to the great class of " interesting, if true."
Compare Smith, Diet. 3. 1331; Zockler, in Herzog, Feal Enc. 17 (1886), 555-556; and for (rich) literature,
Zockler, Chevalier, and Engelmann, i (1880), 798.
(46) Cedrenus, Georgius (ab. 1057). Conipcndium of History. Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1838-1839, 2 v., the
section relating to Constantine occupying Vol. i, p. 472-520 et pass. Also in W\gx\^&, Patrol. Gr. 121-122 (Par.
1S64). Nothing is known of his personal history. The work is a chronicle from the beginning of the world until
1057 A.D. He mentions as his chief sources Georgius Syncellus, " until the time of Maximianus and Maximinus,"
and from this point Theophanes, Siculus, Psellus, and others (cf. p. 4; cf. also Glycas. Chron., ed. Bonn. p. 457),
and claims to have collected facts not in these sources. He mentions the work of Joannes Thracesius, or Curopa-
lates, who is probably Scylitzes, whose work corresponds so exactly with that of Cedrenus in parts as to suggest the
one or the other a better copier than compiler. The statement of Ceillier is that Cedrenus copied the work of
ScyHtzes for the period 811-1057, and that Scylitzes afterwards continued his work to 1081; i.e. there was a double
edition of the work of Scylitzes, and Cedrenus wrote between. But Means (p. 760) thinks otherwise, and gives
good reasons, making one edition and placing Cedrenus' work later, i.e. after 1081. The "additional facts" are
few, the compilation is uncritical and credulous; but the work is recognized as a source to be consulted, though
with greatest critical care.
Compare Plate, in Smith, Diet. i. 658; Ceillier, 13 (1863), 560; Means, Seylitzes, in Smith, Diet. 3. 759-762;
and for literature. Chevalier, under the words Cedrene and Scylitzes.
(47) Pseudo-Leo. Chronography, under Constantiiis Chlorus and Constantinus Magnus. Ed. Bekker
(Bonn. 1842), p. 83-90. In Corp. scr. hist. Byz. from Cramer, Anecd. gr. bibl. reg. Par. 2 (1839), 243-379. It
is published as the first part of the Chronography of Leo Grammaticus, because assigned to him by the catalogues
of the MS. at Paris. It is thought by Cramer, however, not to be by him, but to be " compiled from various writers,
— Cedrenus, Joannes Antiochenus, Chronicon Pasehali, and perhaps others which are lost " (cf. Cramer, Aneed. gr.
2. 243-379, quoted by Bekker, Praef. iii.-iv.). In this section the author quotes Socrates and Eusebius, but uses
other and some unusual sources. While one hesitates to lay much weight on an author of such unknown age and
personality, and which contains obvious errors, yet it carries the conviction of a certain moderate weight. Many
passages are identical, almost word for word, with Cedrenus. In one of these passages the author refers to Socrates
as his authority, while there is no such mention in Cedrenus. They may have taken from the same source. At all
events, this work appears on its face much more like sober history than do Cedrenus and Zonaras. Its absolute
value as source is very slight.
Compare Preface of Bekker.
(48) Attaliata, Michael (ab. 1072). History. Ed. De Presle and Bekker, Bonn. 1853. 8°. He mentions
(p. 217, also p. 222) half a dozen things relating to Constantine; that he was reckoned among the apostles, the
sign of the cross, &c., but nothing of value, unless (p. 222) the transposition of a colony from Iberia to Assyria (?).
Compare Praef. of De Presle, also Graves, in Smith, Diet. i. 409, who, however, does not mention this work:
and for literature. Chevalier and De Presle, p. 7-8.
454 PROLEGOMENA.
(49) Anna COMNENA (1083-II48). Alexias. Ed. Schopen-Reifferscheid, Bonn. 1 839-1 S7S. Mentions among
two or three other deeds, a statue wMch this " father and lord of the city" had made over for liim (12. 4), and that
he has been counted among the apostles (14. 8).
Compare Tlate, in Smith, Did. i. 179; Klippel, in Herzog, I (1877), 427-429, &c.
(50) Glycas, Mich (after 11 18). Chronicle (or Annah'). Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1836; the section relating
to Constantine occupies p. 460-46S, ed. Migne, 158 (Par. 1S66"), 1-958. This work of Glycas extends from the
beginning of the world to A.D. in8. Though "justly placed among the better Byzantine historians" (Plate), for
the period of Constantine he i.> one of the worst. His critical judgment seems to incline to the selection of the
most unhistoric. He gives at end of preceding section a description of the work of Scylitzes (cf. Cedrenus), and
quotes in it a work of Alexander on the Invention of the Cross.
Compare Plate, in Smith, ZP/V/. 2. 277; Joubert. in Noiiv. biog.gen. flloefer), 20 ^1857), 845-846; and for
literature. Chevalier; also for editions, Hoffmann.
(51) NiCETAS Choniatas (Acominatus) (1150-1^16+). History. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz.'&orxn.
1835,8"; ed. Migne, /"(z/r^/. Gr. 139 (1865), 282-1088 (= Mai, j5//'/. «o?:^ /rt/r. 6. ?). Thesaurus, in Migne,
Patrol. Gr. 139-140 (1865), 10S7-1443, I-282 (= Mai, Spicil. Rom. v. 4 ). Born about 1 150, and lived until 1216
at least. Gives in his History two or three things which relate to " the first and mightiest among Christian empe-
rors " (/?(? Is. Aug. 3. 7, ed. Bonn. p. 583); e.g. the tale of the nails from the cross fdo. p. 584), and the despoiling
of his tomb (^De Al. Is. Aug. i. 7, p. 632); also a few in the Thesauri, e.g. his conciliation to Arianism through
liis sister and her friend, the Arian presbyter (6. 3 and 6), and various matters relating to the Arian controversy
(mainly in Bk. 5), where he uses tlie familiar sources, — Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Philostorgius, &c.,
but also some other less familiar ones.
Compare Worman, in M'Clintock and Strong, Cyclop. 7 (1877), 54-55; Plate, in Smith, Diet. 2. I182-1183;
Ullmann, in Stud. u. Krii. (1833), 674-700; Gass, in Herzog, 10 (1882), 540-541, and abridged in Schaff-Herz,
2. 1652. Compare for literature, the above and Chevalier; and for editions, Worman, Plate, Brunet, Graesse,
Hoffmann, &c.
(52) Gregoras, NicephorAS (1295-1359). Byzantine History, Bks. I-37. Ed. .Shopen (v. 1-2) and
Bekker (v. 3), Bonn. 1829, 1830, and 1855. Ii^ Corp. scr. hist. Byz. ; ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 148-149 (1865).
Mentions incidentally half a dozen facts relating to foundation of Constantinople (10. i ; 14. 3, ivc), his destruction
of idolatry (19. i), treatment of the Jews (26. 15), and enlargement of empire (26. 37). He was born 1295, and
died after 1359. Was more learned but less judicious than Cantacuzenus (Plate).
Compare Plate, in Smith, /)?>/. 2.304-306; Joubert, in Nouv. biog. gen. 21 (1857), 889-891; also for litera-
ture, Chevalier, and for editions, Plate and Joubert.
(53) Ephr.emius (fourteenth century). Ctrsars {'>'). Constantinus. lul. Bekker, Bonn. 1840, 8°; section on
Constantine occupies p. 21-25; ed. Migne, 143 (Par. 1865), 1-380. It was first edited by Mai, Scr. vet. nov. coll.
3 (1828), 1-225 (Dowl.), This metrical chronicle introduces one or two fables, but is in the main at least semi-
historical, but its additional facts give no impression of having special sources, — in brief, it is scarcely a source,
rather literature.
Compare Smith, /JiVA 2. 28 ; Y>oVin&2.Vi,\v). Nouv. biog. gen. (Hoefer) 16 (1856), 127; Mai, /'r«y; in ed. Bek-
ker, also ed. Migne. Compare for literature. Chevalier.
(54) Cantacuzenus, Joannes. Angelus Comnenus Pal^eolocus (d. 1375-!-). Histories. Ed. Schopen,
Bonn. 1828-1832, 3 v.; also in Wx^vig., Patrol. Gr. 153-154 (Dowl. 1S66). Speaks of Constantine as a model of
clemency (4. 2; ed. Bonn. v. 3, p. 18) worthy to be compared with tlie apostles (3. 92), and as led by the spirit
of God like David (4. 48; ed. Bonn. v. 3, p. 351), and mentions the time (in May) when his memory is celebrated
(4. 4; 3. 92), but has hardly a half-dozen mentions and fewer facts of interest or value. He reigned 1342-1355,
abdicated, and lived until after 1375.
Compare Plate, in Smith, i^zVA 579-5^1 ; and for farther literature. Chevalier and Engelmann, also for editions.
(55) Nicephorus Callistus (d. ab. 1450). Ecclesiastical History, 7. 17-18, 55. In Migne, Patrol. Gr.
145-147. Bk. 7 is in 145, and Bk. 8 in 146. This late history, not so bad as some in style, but full of legendary
matter, was compiled from the standartl existing historians, and perhaps some otliers. The portions on Constantine
are taken almost wholly from Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and other existing historians.
Compare Schaff, Church Hist. 3 (1884), 883-SS4; Plate, in Smith, Diet. 2 (1S59), I180-1181; Dowling,
//z/r(7,/. (1838), 91-93.
(56) Monody on the Younger Constantine (ab. 1450). Ed. Frotscher, Anon. Grcici oratio funcbris,
Freiberg i. S., 1855. This work has not been seen, but according to Seeck (^Ztschr.f. IViss. Theol. 1890, p. 64)
and Wordsworth (p. 630) this edition contains the result of a study Iiy Wesseling, which shows that this work,
referring to an anonymous emperor, docs not refer to Constantine II. at all, but to some ruler who belongs in the
fifteenth century.
Compare Sceck and Wordsworth for editions.
(57) CODINUS (d. ab. 1453?). Excerpts on the origins of Constantinople. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1843). For
CONSTANTINK THE GREAT. 455
other editions, compare articles of Plate and the Nouv. biog. gen. Contains considerable relating to Constantine,
especially respecting the founding of Constantinople, and the buildings and statues in it. Mainly compilation, or
compilation from compilation, but is from partly lost sources and far from unnecessary. He died about 1453 (?)■
Compare Plate, in Smith, Z'/r/'. I (1859), 810-81 1; Nouv. biog. gen. \\ (1855), 24-25; and for literature.
Chevalier.
(58) DUCAS (fl. 1450-1460 A.n.) gives " From the incarnation until Constantine the Great, 318 years," and
speaks of a church restored by him. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. scr. hist. By:.. (1834), p. 13 and 48.
(59) Geoffrey of Monmouth (d. 1154). British History. English translation (Lond. Bohn, 184S), 162-.
The passage relating to Constantine covers a number of pages, and is ninety-live per cent fiction, five per cent fact.
Compare Tedder, in Stephen, Did. of Nat. Biog. 21 (1890), 133-135.
Various of the old chronicles are only translations or paraphrases of this; e.g. the Chronicle of Pierre de Lang-
toft (ed. Wright, Lond. 1866, p. 76-78), various Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, and French chronicles, Waurin's Rcciieil
dcs Chroiiiquis (ed. Hardy, Lond. 1864), although Hardy maintains that neither Waurin or any of the other
versions are real translations, but says there is some lost common source.
(60) Henry OF Huntingdon (i 135). History of the English. Ed. Arnold, Lond. 1879, 8", p. 29-31. Engl,
translation, Lond. Bohn, 1853, p. 28-29. This is written from generally good sources, notably Eutropius, and
means to be historical; but its mythical details — e.g. Helena, a British princess, Constantine cured of leprosy —
make it useless.
Compare Forester, Preface to translation; Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 2 (1846), 167-173.
(61) William of Malmesbury (1137). Chronicle of England. English translation, Giles (Lond. Bohn,
1847), 6. Mentioned as a source because often quoted in literature. He ascribes to Constantine the introduction
of the British settlement in France.
Compare Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 2 (1846), 134-142.
(62) DiCETO, Ralph de (d. 1202?). Abbreviated Chronicles. Ed. Stubbs, Lond. 1876; section on Con-
stantine, p. 73-76. This work was composed before 1188. It consists in the main of abstracts from Eutropius,
Eusebius, Jerome, and Rufinus, with various mythical details from William of Malmesbury and other sources.
Compare Poole, in Stephen, Diet, of N'at. Biog. 15 (1S8S), 12-14. This is taken from Stubbs, Introduction, q.v.
(63) Eulogiutn Historiariim (ab. 1366). Ed. Ilaydon, Lond. 1858, 3 v.; section on Constantine, i. 337-
339; 2. 267-268, 332-333; 3. 12, 265. This was probably written by Peter, a monk of Malmesbury (Haydon),
about 1366. Compiled from various sources, has familiar facts, but is of no value except for legends.
Compare Preface of Ilaydon.
(64) Voragine (1230-1298). Golden Legend. Legend concerning the Lnventio'i of the Cross. Ed. Graesse
(Lips. 1846, repr. Vratisl. 1890). French translation by Brunet, 2 (1843), 11 8- 11 6. Early English translation
printed by Caxton. A curious mixture of fact and fable, in which legendary is gathered, but all facts are expressed
with a curious conscientiousness, or pretended conscientiousness, in quoting authorities. But on Constantine,
however, his authorities do not always come to the test of containing what he quotes from them.
Compare article Varaggio, in M'CHntock and Strong, Cyclop. 10 (1881), 719, Brunet's Preface and the Pro-
ceedings of the American Soc. of Ch. Hist, for 1889.
Besides the above-mentioned sources there are many mentions which may be found in the
various collections of mediaeval documents, such, e.g., as Pertz, Monnincnta Germanice Historica,
which has various interesting chronicles covering the period of Constantine.
§ 3. Literature.
In making the following thread to the rich literature on Constantine the plan has been to con-
fine almost wholly to Monographs, since to refer to all histories, encyclopaedias, and the like which
treat of him would be endless. Only such few analyzed references are introduced as have special
reasons. Even with this limit it cannot be at all hoped that the list is exhaustive. Considerable
pains has been taken, however, to make it full, as there is no really extended modern list ot
works on Constantine, excepting, perhaps, Chevalier i^Rt^p- dcs sources hist, dit Moyen Age) . The
effort was made to see each work referred to personally, but the libraries of London, Oxford,
Berlin, Paris, could not supply them, and after a good deal of search in other libraries and more
or less successful effort to purchase, there is still a considerable portion which has not been seen.
The editor has tried in vain to decide in various instances whether prseses or respondent is
author in certain dissertations. Following is the list :
456 PROLEGOMENA.
Albanf, Jo. Hiek. Liher pro oppiignaia R. pontif. digniiate &• Consiantini donatione. Colon. Agrip. 1535,
fol.; Romae, 1547,4°; Venetiis, 1584, fol.
Alexander, Natalis. Hist, cedes. IV. (1778), 345-351 (= Zaccaria, Thes. theolog. VII. 886-900), 431-451.
Alford, Mich. Brittania illustrata, s. liber dc Lucii, Helemc, et Consiantini pairia el fide. Antwerpise, 1 641 . 4°.
Altus, Henricus. Donatio Consiantini iinperaloris facto {jit aiunt) Sylveslro papic {pras, Joach. Ililde-
brando). Helmstadii, 1661. 4*^ (p. 56). Not Hildebrand?
Alzog, J. Manual of Universal Church History. Tr. Pabisch and Byrne. Cincinnati, O., 1 874. 3 v. 8°,
p. 462-476. Relations of Constantine the Great to the Catholic Church. Very Roman Catholic.
AndlAU, Fr. von. Die hyz. Kaiser. Hist. -stud. Mainz, 1865, 8°.
Antoniades, CrysANTHOS. Kaiser Licinius, eine historische Untersuchting nach dein hestcrn alien iind
ncueren Quellen. Miinchen, 1884. 8°. Unfortunately not at hand, but often mentioned with greatest respect by
Gcirres and others.
Arbellot. Metnoire siir les statues i-qiiestres de Constantin placees dans les eglises dc Voucst dc la France.
Limoges, 1885. 8'-'', 34 pp. (Cf. Audiat, Louis, in Bull. soc. arch. Saintonge, 18S5. II. v. 186-193, 280-292.)
Contains a history of the long arch;vological discussion on the subject of the equestrian statue on the facades of
various churches in the west of France. Some say it represents Charles Martel, Charlemagne, the founder of the
church, the rider who appeared to Heliodorus, Rider of the Apocalypse, St. Martin, St. George or the Church
Triumphant. Consult for many titles on the discussion, which it is not worth while to give here. Arrives at the
result that the "greater part" represent Constantine.
Arendt. Uebcr Constantin und sein Vcrhdltniss zuin Christenthum. In Theolog. Quartalschr. Tiibing.
1834. in. 387.
Arrhenius, Laur. Dissertatio historica de Constantino Magna. Upsal. 1719. 4"^
Refutatio commenti de donatione Consiantini Magni. Upsal. 1 729.
.0
AuBfe, B. De Constantino iinperatorc, ponlifice iiiaximo dissertatio. Lute tins, 1 861. S'^, loS pp. Examines
Constantine's attitude toward (i) Pagans, (2) Christians; concludes that, as a matter of fact, he exercised the
office of Pontifex Maximus over both.
Audiat, Louis. Les statues an portail des eglises. In Bull, de la soc. des arch, de la Saintogne. 5 (1884-
1885) (1885), 186, 193. Starts out from Arbellot. Gives ten various theories. Mentions various works. This with
Arbellot a sufficient apparatus for this topic.
Baciimann, p. Wider die Nallcrzungcn, , . . Dabcy ein Antiuort auff Consiantini Donation, welche der
Luther spoltlich ncnnct den Hohen Artickel des allerhcyligislen Bebstlichen glaubens (Dresden), 1538,4°, (45). p.
Examines whether the Donation is " ein Teuffelische liigen und Gottes lasterung (wie sie der Luther nennet)."
BAIER, Joh. Dav. Disputatio de crroribus quibusdaiii politicis Constantino Magno imputalis. Jenae, 1705, 4^.
Balduinus, FrAN'C. Constantinus Magnus, sive de Consiantini iinperaloris legibus ccclesiasticis atquc ei-rilibus
cominentariortiin libri 2. Basileae, 1556, 8*^; Argent, 1612, S'^; prsef. Nic. Hier. Gundling, Lipsiae-HalcC, 1727,8°,
235 (23) PP-
Bang, A. Chrs. Kirchen og Romerstaten indlil Constantin den Sire, Christiana, 1879, 8°.
Baring, Nicol, Dissertatio epislolica dc crueis signo a Constantino J\/agno conspcclo. Ilannov. 1645, ^'^•
Baronius, ^«M«/« (1590), 306, 16-18, 3-25; 307, 3-15; 312, 7-337, 37; 358, 27, Cf. Pagi, Cril. (1689),
306, 5-307, 14; 311, 9-337, 6; 547, 12.
Bartoi.ini, Dumenico. Come Coslanlini Augusli iinperatorc innalzassc in Roma i primi sacri edifici del
cullo cristiano. Dissertazione in Atti Accad. Rom. archeol. 12 (1852) I. 281-308. Opposes the idea that these
belong to a period not before Ilonorius. Separately printed. " Dissertazione . . . letta nell' Atlunanza tenuta.
il di 16 di marzo, /5^J." pp. 30 (i).
Baudot. Dissertation critique sur la fainille de Constantin, (St* en particulier sur Constantin le feunc.
In Magas. cncyclop. 6 (1812), 241-274. Under head of Numismatique opposes Valois in Acad. Inscr. 1740.
The medals do refer to Constantine. Includes a discussion of Constantine's family.
Baune, J. DE LA. Vita Consiantini Magni, hcratisgcgeben von A. yUger. Norimb. 1779, 8°.
Bayet, C. La fausse donation de Consiantini, examcn de quelques theories reccnles. In Ann. fac. lett. Lyon,
1884, I. 3 (1884), 12-44. The donation belongs in second half of eighth century, or first half of ninth.
Bertiiei.6, Jos. In Bibl. ec. des Charles, 46 (1885), 330-331. [Review of Arliellot.] Gives brief analysis,
and mentions one statue omitted by Arbellot.
Beuste, JoACH. V. Oratio de Constantino Magno. Witteb. 1569,8°. " Extat Tom VI. Orationum Vitem-
burgensium."
^I'os Kol iroXiTfla ruv ayiwv OeoaTfirrcvu fieydXan' fia<Ti\fwv koI IcrairoaTSKuv KuivaravTbov Kal 'EAec?;? [Mnemeia
hagiologica, p. 164] Bfvtria, 18S4, la. 8'-'.
BoKHRlNGER. Alhanasius u. .Irius, 1874, p. I-53.
BoissiER. Essais d'histoire rcligicusc, /. un dernier mot sur les persecutions; IT. la conversion de Constantin.
In Rev. d. deux mondcs (Feb. 1886), p. 790-818, (July) p. 51-72.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 457
BONNEAU, Alcide. Aitidc historique. In his edition-translation of Valla's Donation of Constantinc. Inter-
esting, and gathers much of what one wants to know first about tlie Donation.
BoNNETTY, A. De la donation dc Constantin ct dc la prolcctio)i qiCil accorda an tliristianisiiic. In Annal
(le Philos. chret. (1831), 125-136. Personal conversion a secondary question. It is sufficient to have proved that
it was no longer possible for paganism to occupy the throne of the world.
BoRCKMANN, Jac. Friii. Dissertatio historico-critica dc labaro Constantini Magni. Hafniec, 1 700. 4'-'.
Borr, Theod. Constantin Ic Grand ct sa position cntrc Ic paganisme ct le christianisme, cssai historico-
critique. Colmar, 1874. 8°, 51 pp.
Brieger, Theod. Constantinc der Grosse ah Religions-politickcr. Kirchcngeschichtlichcr Beitrag. Gotha, 1880.
8^, 48 pp. Cf. Grisar, in Zeitschr. kath. Theol. 18S2, vi. 554-562.
Bridges, Matfh. Roman Empire under Constantinc the Great. London, 1828. 8°, 467 pp.
Brogue, A. DE. LEglise et U Empire Romaine an IV. sHclc. I. Regne de Constantin. Paris, 1856. 8°. One
of the best and most frequently cited.
Brunner, II. In the Festgabe fiir R. v. Gneist, Berlin, 1888, p. 5 (i)-35. Donation.
Buchhclz, Sam. Constantin dcr Grosse in seiner lualiren Grosse wirdcrhcrgestellt. Berlin, 1772. 4°.
Buddeus. Observ. sel. liter. I. (1700), 370-440.
Bl'rckhardt, Jak. Die Zeit Constantin's des Grosscn. Basel, 1853. 8°, 222 pp. Leipzig, 1880. 8°. For
a long time the standard work on Constantine. Unsympathetic, and in a measure unjust.
De Burigney. Hist, des Revolutions de I'' empire le Constantinople depuis le fondation. . . . Paris, 1750; tr.
German, Hamb. 1754.
Bus^us, JoH. Dispidatio theolog. de baptisnio Constantini I\fagni. 4*^. Moguntis?, 1589.
Canonici, Matf. Alois. Proposizioni storico-critiche intorno alia vita deW imperatore Costantino. . . . 4°.
Parma, 1760. Compare Cigola, Vincenzo.
Castelli, Ign. Intorno al battesimo di Costantino imper. dissertazione. In La scienza e la fede. 1 1 (Nap.
1870), 201-219.
Caussin, Nicolas. Eques christianus, s. Constantius Magnus, Trad, du frang. par Henri Lamormain.
Vienn. 1637, 8°.
Cave. Scr. Eccl. I. (174 1), 183-185.
Cavedoni, C. Disamina della nuova edizione delta IVuiiiismatica Costantiniana del P. Raffaele Garrucci d.
C. d. G. 19 pp. Extr. dalla Rivista della Numismatica (Olivieri), 2 (1S64).
Cavedoni. " Recherches critique sur Ics medailles de Constantin le Grand et de son fits ornees de types et de
symboles chretiens." Modena, 1858.
Ceillier. Histoire des auteurs sac. et eccl. 3 (1865), I18-148.
Chaulnes, Gabriel de. In Ann. philos. chret. 5 ser. E. XVI. (1867), 261-271. On the donation of
Constantine.
Chauner. Influence of Christianity upon the Legislation of Constantine. 1874, 8°.
Chiffletus, Petr. Fran'C. Dissert. . . . De loco., tempore ^ cccteris adjunctis conversionis magni Constantini
ad fidem christianam. . . . Paris, 1676, 8°.
Church Policv of Constantine the Great. In North British Rev. 1870, LII. i.
ClAMPiNi, Joan. De sacris ccdificiis a Constantino Magno constructis synopsis historica. Romae, 1693, la.
4^ (or fol.), 8 f.-2i8 p.
Cigola, Vincenzo. Proposizioni storico-critiche intorno alia vita dell' Imperatore Costantino {praes. Aladama
Isabella di Spagna) Vincenzo Cigola Bresciano Convittore nel Regio-Ducal ecclegio de' Nobili ei Parma. Parma,
1760, 4°, 44 pp. Three plates of coins and medals of Constantine and (2) various theses. At end sixteen pages of
inscriptions, and three pages of coins and medals (60 pages in all).
Civilita Cattolica. Ser. 5, Vol. 10 (1864), 601-609. i. La frase instinctu Divinitatis nell' arco trionfale
di Costantino. 2. Le monete di Costantino, posteriori alia vittoria sopra Massenzio.
Clinton, H. F. Easti Romani, I (Oxf. 1845), 348-397; 2 (1850), 86-94. This is a most convenient massing
of sources, including groupings of laws and inscriptions. One of the most thoroughly useful of works.
CoEN, ACH. Di una leggenda relativa alia nascita e alia gioventii di Costantino Maqno. In Arch. soc.
Romana stor. patria, 1880-1882, IV. 1-55, 293-316, 535-561; V. 33-66, 489-541. Roma, 1882. 8°, 191 pp.
Cf. Rev. d. Quest, hist. 33. 682; Vesselofsky, A. in Romania, 14 (1885), 137-143.
CoLOMBlER, PI. M. La donation de Constantin. In Etudes relig. hist. litt. (1S77), 31 year, 5 ser. Vol. II.
801-829. Is worth looking over, as it gathers many of the facts which bear on date. Thinks he has " exact date."
" L'origine Romaine n'est guere douteuse " "vers I'an 687," by " decs mecontents du pape."
Combes, Francois. Les liberateurs des nations. Paris, 1874. 8°, p. 208-229. Constantin Liberateur des
Chretiens.
Considerations generales sur le christianisme (jv. s.). Dempereur Constantin. St. Etienne, 1884. 16°, 1 36 pp.
Constantin Imp. Byzantini Numismatis argentei Expositio, 1600.
458 PROLEGOMENA.
Die Constantinische Schenkungsurkimde. I. Brunner, H. Das Constitutum Constantini. II. Zeumer, K.
Dcr dlteste Text. Berlin, Springer, 1 888. 8°, 60 pp. " Aus Festgabe f. Rud. v. Gneist."
Constantinus Magnus Romanortim imperaior Joamie Reuchline Phorccnsi interprete. Tubingse, 1 5 1 3. 4°, 23 pp.
Contin. MontJily, 6 (1864), 161 (Schaff?).
Ckackenthorpe, Richard. The Defense of Constantine : with a treatise of the Popes iemporall inonarchic.
Wherein, besides divers passages, touching other Counsels, both General and Froviciall, tlie second Roman Synod,
under Sylvester, is declared to be a vieere Fiction and Forgery. London, 1621. 4°, pp. (16), 283(1). Ch. 1-7.
Seven reasons proving the Synod to be a forgery. Ch. 8. That Constantine made no such donation, and Gretser
refuted. Ch. 9. Three reasons to prove that Constantine never made donation. Ch. 10-15. Seven witnesses, four
popes, sixteen other witnesses, thirty lawyers, and eight emperors alleged by Marta as witnesses of Constantine's
donation examined; also four reasons brought by Marta and Albanus. Consult for older literature relating to
the Donation.
La crueldad, y Sinrazon \ La vcmicc auxilio y valor, Maxencio y Constantino ('coloph.). Barcelona per
Carlo Gilbert y Tuto, Impressor y Librerio. Historical drama. Introduces character of Constantine, the younger
Constantine, Fausta, &c.
CuRTON, A. DE. In Nouv. biog. gen. 11 (1855), 5S1-595.
CUSA, NiCOLAUS DE. De Concordantia Cathulica. Judicium de do)iatio)ie Constantini. Basil, 1568.
CuTTS, Edw. L. Constantine the Great, the union of the State and the Church. London and New York, 1881.
12°, XIV. 422 pp. For general, not especially scholarly use.
Dalhus. Dissertatio de baptismo Constantini Alagni. Hafnios, 1696 (1698, Vogt.).
De.metriades, Kalliop. Die christliche Regierung und Orthodoxie Kaiser Constantin d. Grossen, eine histor.
Studie. MUnchen, 1878, 8°, IV. 47 pp.
DiEZE, JOH. Andr. Dissertatio de forma imperii Romani Constantino Magno rccte atque sapientcr mutata.
Lipsi.t;, 1752,4", 34 pp.
Dollinger, J. A-. Die Papst-Fabeln des Alittelalters. 1863. Cf. Civiltk cattol, ser. 5, v. 10 (1864), 303-330;
tr. Gar. Mainz, 1867. gr. 8°, 34 pp.
Dollinger. In Miinchener Hist. Jahrb. (1865), 337-.
Dudley, Dean. Llistory of the First Council of Nice : A world's Christian convention, A.D. J2^ ; with a life
of Constantine. Boston, Dean Dudley cS; Co., 1879, 120 pp.
Duerr, Joan. Friu. Dissertatio historica de Constantino Magno. Jenre, 1684, 4°.
Du Pin. Nov. Bibl. Aut. Feci. 2, p. 16-.
Duruy, Vict. Les pretniercs annees du r^gne de Constantin (305-323). In Compte rendu acad. scien. mor.
polit. (1881). F. XVI. 737-765. Speaks of his "cold cruelty." He was convinced that "the future was victory
to Christians, and political wisdom counselled to go with them."
La politiqtie rcligictise de Constantin (312-337). In Compte rendu acad. scien. mor. polit. (1882),
XVII. 185-227. Orleans, 1882, 8°, 47 pp. = Rev. archseolog., 1882, B. XLIII. 96-110, pi. 155-175. Cf. Allard,
P., in Lettrcs chret. (1882), V. 244-249. " Fragment de son Histoire des Romains." Treats: I. La vision miracu-
leuse. II. Le lavarum. III. Popularite croissante du culte du Soleil. IV. Constantin h Rome en 312: son arc de
triomphe. V. L'edit de Milan (313). VI. Mesures pour I'execution de I'edit de Milan. VIII. Monnaies de
Constantin; Constantinople. -IX. Resume.
Les conditions sociales au temps de Constantin. In Compte rendu acad. scien. mor. polit. (1882),
XVIII. 729-772. Treats : La cour. La noblesse. La bourgeoisie, La plelje, Les corporations reglementees, L'armee.
Du Voisin, J. B. Dissertation critique sur la vision de Constantin. Paris, 1774. 12°, 331 pp. Cf. Journ.
d. S5avans (1774), 452-459-
EcKHEL. Doctrina numerum veterum. 8 (Vindob. 1828), 71-95.
Eltz, H. In Public, hist. Inst, Luxembourg (1874-1875), XXIX. 225-236. In this paper, p. 215-236, p.
225-235, are occupied with coins of Constantine and his sons.
EWYCK, Fi.orentius OB. Oratio in latidem Constantini Magni habitu a . . . Tempore Exanimis Iluberni
GandiC a.d. XII. Cat. Januar. MDCXCIII. Gandse, 1692, pp. ii(i). Draws nice little moral of the "good
example " from Constantine.
Iabricius, Joan. Alb. Dissertatio de crucc Constantini Magni qua probatur earn fuisse pha:nonienon in
halone solari, quo Deus usus, sit ad Constantini Magni animum promovendum. Hamburg!, 1706. 40 (or Wol-
tercck, who is resp.?). Cf. " Bibl. gr. VI. (1714-1749). 1-29; IX. 68 (2a, IV. 882; VI. 693-718)."
Faklati. Illyric. sac. VIII. (1819), 25-27.
Fletcher, Jos. Life of Constantine the Great. London, 1852. i2mo.
Fkeherus. •' Diss. Const. Imp. Numis." 1600. VyvXcnWy = Const Imp. Byz. Numism. d. above.
FiNCKlUS, Casp. De disput. de Baptismo. T. V. p. 313, disp. XIII.
Frtck, Joh. Dissertatio de fide Constantini Magni hand dubie Christiana. Ulmce, 1713. 4°. Not Frick
(who is prxses), but Miller(?).
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 459
Fkiedkich, J. Die Konsiantinischc Schcnkung. Nordlingen, 1S89. ^"- VII. 197 pp. Reviewed in Theol.
Literaturblatt, 1S90, Nos. 3-5; in Kvang. Kii-ch-ztng, No. 18 (1S89); by Scliultze, in Theol. Litt. Ber. 1889;
Liter. Centralblatt, 1S89, No. T^y, by lUoch, in Mttlgn. a. d. histor. Litt. (1890), No. i; by Liiwenfcld, in Deutsche
Ltzng. (1S90), No. 3.
Frimelius, Joannis. De Constanlini Magni Religionc, Baptisino <S-^ rcruin sacrarum apparatu. Mentioned
by Kunardus, in a " Disputationum Catalogus," p. (8).
Fkommann, E. A. De codiii/'iis s. jussii Constantiiii ah pAiscbio curatis. Coburgi, 1761. 4°.
Frothingham, Arthur. Compare edition of Jacobus of Sarug.
FuHRMANN, Matthias. Historia sacra dc baptisino Constantino Alax. Augusli. I. Roma.', 1742; II. Vienna
in .'Vustria, 1 747, 4^, fig.
Garrucci, RafI'". Esaine critico c croiioloi^ico delta nwnisntatica Costantiniana portante segni di cristia-
ncsiino. Roma, 1858, 8*^, 72 pp.
In Vctri cimit. crist. Roma (1S84), append. 1S58. Croce greca sulle monete di Costantino
c sua famigla, 89.. 90, 91. Croce latina sullc . . . Costantino padre c figlio e di Costanzo, 95. Vario modo di
figuriale ai tempi di Costantino, 103.
Vcrrcs ornes de figures en or, trouves dans tes Catacoinbes Romaines. 2d cd. 1864. Has at end
discussion of symbols of Constantine. Compare Anal. Jur. Pout. 1S73.
Gasparin, Ac. de. Innocent III., le siccle apostolique, Constantin. Paris, 1873, 12°, p. 75-193-
Constantin. In le christianisnie au qnatribne sihcle. Geneve, 1858, 8°, p. 1-139. The ques-
tion of church and state. The present problem of the churches is to undo the work of Constantine. Lectures to
Y. M. C. A. of Geneva.
Genelin. Das Schenkungsversprechcn iind die Schenkung Pippins. Wicn und Leipzig, 1 880.
Gengel, Georg. De Constantino Magna, primo Ckristianorui/i iinperatore, dissertatio . . . Calissii, 1726,
8°, 14-89-6 pp.
Gibbon. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Many editions. Furnishes later historians of Constantine
with almost unlimited material for adoring quotation.
GiRAULT, Cl. X.\v. Dissertation histor. &= critique sur le lieu oil la croix iniraculeusc apparut a Constantin
cr" (/ son ar/nee. In Magas. encyclop. Paris, 1810, 8°.
GuRRES, Franz. Die Verwandtenmorde Constantin'' s des Grossen. In Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 30 (1S87), 343-
377. Reaches, with Hilgenfeld, the rather severe judgment that, on the whole, the bloodguiltiness of Licinius is
less than that of Constantine. There are also various other interesting reviews or treatises l)y Gorres.
Graetz, H. Die Herrschaft des Christenthuins durch Constantin' s Bekehrung. In Monatsschrift f. gesch. u.
wiss. Judenthum (1S87), 416-421.
Grauert, Herm. Die Konstantinische Schenkung. In Gorres-Ges. Histor. Jahrb. 1882-84, HI- P- i-2Py
IV. (1883), 45-95, 525-617, 674-680; V. 117-120. Reaches result that it arose not in Rome, but in P'rance, from
the cloister of St. Denis, shortly before or at the same time with the Pseudo-Isidore, and shortly after 840.
(Weiland, p. 142.)
Gretser. De sancta crucc. In Opera, v. 2. Ratisbonre, 1734, fol.
Grisar, Haptm. Die vorgeblichen Beioeise gegen die Christlichkeit Constantins des Grossen. In Zeitschr. f.
kathol. Theolog. VI. (1882), 585-607. Cf. La Controverse, 1882, III. 693-702.
Grossius, Mattii. Dissertatio de donatione Constantini Magni. Lipsice, 1620. 4°.
GUALTHERIUS. See Walther.
GuiDl, Ign. // battesiino di Costantino iinperatore. In Nuova Antologia, B. XLI. (1S83), 41-52. Starts
from Frothingham's work. Consult for list of authors who repeat the story. Mentions some who still believe in
the fable.
GrsTA, Franc. Vita di Costantino il grande, 1° iinperat. christiano. Foligno, 1786; 2 v. 4°. ediz. 2, rev.
ricorr. ed. accresc. 1790; ed. 3. 2 v. 320 and 282 pp. 8°. 1816. 2 v. 332 and 296 pp. 8°. In Zaccaria,
Raccolta di dissertazioni, 13. (1795), 172-189.
Haenisius, Gottlieb. Dissertatio de Constantino Magna non ex rationibus paliticis christiano. I'lilgo Ob Con-
stantinus Magnus ohngeachtet seiner spate n Taiifc, cin ivahrer Christ zu ncnnen. (Praes. Gott. Chr. Lentnerus.)
1714, Lipsioe. p. 76. Usually referred to under Lentncr, but B. i\L correctly gives Haenisius (?)
Hakluvt. Voyages, 2 (1810), 34-35. i. The voyage of Helena. Latin and English. The author of
Latin not given. He quotes as authorities, Eusebius, Virninnius, and Ponticus. 2. The voyage of Constantine
the Great, emperor and king of Britaine, to Greece, yEgypt, Persia, and Asia, Anno 339. Latin and English.
Rather phenomenal energy on the part of a man two years dead.
Hallern (Heller?), Godofredus (Vratisl.). Dispufatio theologio quanta de religiane Constantini Magni. . . .
Jadaci Kedii . . . (Praes. And. Kunardo [19 Maji, A.O.K. MDLIIX.], Wittenberg.12 [1658]. 4°, p. 123-172,
Kunardus?)
Halloix, Petr. Epistola de baptisino Constantini. In Morin, Antiq. eccl. orient. (1682).
46o PROLEGOMENA.
Harduin, J. Chronologia saritli Constantiniani ex so/is nttmis antiqiiis. In his Op. scl. p. 442-,
Hartmann, J. A. Disscrtatio hislorica (ic Ilclcnn, Constantini I\Iiv:;ni inalrc. i\Iarb. 1723. 4°.
Hauck, a. Zur donatio Constantini. In Ztschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. u. kirchl. Lcben (1888), 201-207.
Hebenstreit, G. E. (= Hofmann, C. F.). Ilisloire dc Constantin le Grand. Limoges, 1866. \2^. i4Spp.
Heckenhoek, Adr. Oratio in landcm Constantini UFagni priini christianoritin impcratoris. (viii. Aprilis
MDCCXVI.), Dordrechti. (4) 23 pp.
Helmke. De Constantini Magni ita moribtis et kgibiis penitus ex fontibus repetita dispiitatio. Parsi.Progr.
Stargard, 1827. 4°.
Hesse, Joann. Christianus. Dissertatio Ilistorico-Pragniatica qua Constantiniiin Magnum ex rationihus
politieis Christianuin. (Prres. B. G. Struvius) [" autor respondens," Hesse]. May, MDCCXIII. Jense, (4) 76 pp.
Not Struve ? Pref. is by Struve, to be sure, but seems to be congratulatory letter to Hesse on his work ? But Hae-
nisius(?) (1714), the following year, ascribes to Struve.
Heumann, Ciiph. a. De cruce ewlesti a Constantino Magna conspecta. In his Foeeile, 2. 50-.
Heydenreich, Eduard. Ucbcr cincn ncii gcfundenen Roman von der yttgendgeschichte Constantins des
Grosscn und von der Kaiserin Helena. In Verhandll. d. Philologenversammlung in Trier, p. 177 ff.; Repr. in d.
Berliner Zeitschr. f. d. Gymnasialwcsen, 34 (18S0), 27 1-.
Der lihellus de Constantino Magna ejusque inatre Helena und die iihrigen Berichte iiher Constantins
des Grassen Geburt und yugend. Eine kritisehe Untersuchung von ... In Archiv fiir Litteraturgeschichte
hrsg. Fr. Schnorr. Carolsfeld. X (1881), 319-363.
Hildebrand, Joach. Dissertatio de donatione Constantini Magni. Helmstad, 1661, 4^; 1703; '739; 1761.
Altus or Hildebrand?
Hofmann, Car. Frid. et Hebenstreit, Geo. Ern. Disputatio Historico-Critiea de Constantini Magni
sepulchro. Lipsije, 1759, 4°, 48 pp.
Hojer, J. C. QiuE Constantino Magna favaris in Christian, fuerunt eausstc. Jense, 1758, 16 pp.
Haute, Theodorus van der. Oratio prior de Constantino Magna, dicta a . . . Delfis. Apud Joannem
Speyers, Bibliopolam, 1702, 14 pp. Spoken at the same time with Rouille's Oration. Cf. Rouille for estimate.
[Hug] Denkschrift zur Ehrenrcttung Constantin^s des Grassen. In Zeitschrift Geistlichkeit Erzbisth. Frei-
burg, III. Heft. (Freib. 1829.) 1-104. Treats various charges. The death of Crispus a plot of Fausta for the
sake of her children, she causing it to seem to Constantine that Crispus and his nephew were plotting against the
empire.
Hunckler. Constantin le Grand et son ri'gne. Limoges, 1843 ^"^ 1846. 12°. (" 1843, 12°; dc. 1S46,
12°.")
Hynitzsch, Adolf, Die Taufe Constantins des Grassen naeh Gesehiehte und Sage. 1870. Progr. des Gymna-
sium in Stendel.
Incerti auetoris de Constantino Magna ejusque matre Helena libellus. E cadicibiis primus edidit Eduardus
Heydenreich. Lips., Teubner, 1879. 12^. p. vii. [1], 30. "ic^ nnAtx The Mythieal Constantine.
Jacobatius. De coneilio trnctattis. Romae, 1538, lib. X. art. 8, p. 780-783. De donatione Constantini.
Jacobus of Sarug. H omilia di Giacoino di Sartig sul Battesinto di Caslantina imperatore, trad, ed annot.
da Arthur L. Frothingham, Jr. Roma, 1882. Fol. (From Reale Accad. dei Lincei. CCLXXIX [1881-S2].) Consult
for various sources and writers where story is found.
Jacutius, Matih. Syntagma quo ad parentis magna Constantino eriuis historia complexa est universa. . . .
Romw, 1755. 4°.
Janus, Jon. W, Sehediasma historicum de patria Constantini Magni. Witteb. 1716. 4°.
"Janus." Der Pabst und das Concil. Leipzig, 1869. 8°, xix, 451 pp.
Jekp, Ludw. Znr Gcsch. Constantins. Festschrift f. E. Curtius. (Berlin, 1884. 8°.) p. 79.
Journal des S^avants. (1774), p. 451-459. Review and analysis of Du Voisin.
Kaufmann, Georg. Eine neue Theorie iiber die Entstehung u. Tendenz der angeblichen Sckenktmg Constan-
tins. In Allgem. Zeitung (1884), 194-196, 211-212. Valuable. Weiland, p. 146-147.
Kedd, Jod. Canstantinus Magnus Romana-cathalicus, ccclesia catholicus, s. Stephanus &^ primi Hungariic
reges Romano catholici . . . Vienncc Austriix;, 1655. 4°, 145 pp.
Keim. Die rom Toleranz-Edickte. In "Theol. Jahrb. 1852 11."
KEiNf, Theodor. Der Uebertritt Constantins des Grossen zum Christenthuni, academ. Vortrag . . . Ziirich,
1862, 8^. viij.-io6 pp. "A Christian in its strict sense Constantine was certainly not, even up to the end of his
life," and yet he was inwardly touched by Christianity.
Keri, Francisc. Borg. Imperaiores orientes . . . a Constantio Magna ad Constantini ultimum. . . . Tyr-
navi.T;, 1774. Fol.
KisT, N. C. De cominutalione quam, Constantino auctore soeietas subiit Christiana. Trajecti ad Rh. 181 8,
120 pp. 8°.
KoRMART, Chrph. Dissertatio politica de Constantino Magna. Lipsire, 1665. 4'^.
C0NSTANTIN1-: THE GREAT. 461
Krug. Byz. Chron. St. Petersh. iSio. 8°.
KrOckr, G. Zttr Frage fiarh th'r Entstthuvgszcit dcr Konstanlutschcn Siheiikung. In Theol. Literaturzeitung,
14 (18S9), 429-435' 455-460.
KuNADUS, And. Constantimis Magnus Evangelicus Constantino Roinano-Catholico Jodoci Keddii yesuiliC
oppositus. Ed. second, Wittch. 1666. 4"^, p. (8) 224.
Landucci. Una celehre costiliizionc delV impcratorc Costa iili no, saggio escgctico. Padiiva, 1 886. 8°, 30 pp.
Lancen, Henricus. Constantintis J/agniis Inteiitu Utrimqtic Maxi/iiiaiii, et Ifircttlii ct Calcrii i7i iwgimine
confirtnatus. (Pras. J. J. Weidner.) S Sept. 1703. Rostochii (p. 48). (By Langcn, not /rf/V/wc;- ?)
Langen, J. Entstchung und Tendenz dcr Konstantiniscltcn Siiu-nkiiugsitrhitnde. In .Sybel, Hist. Zeitschr.
(1883), p. 413-435. " Erweitete Ausfurhung e. Aufsat/.e in deutschcn Merkur, 1S81, Nr. 34."
Langen. In Geschichte d. roinischen Kirche. lionn, 1885, p. 726-.
LtV Salle. In Biografia universale, XIII. (Vcnezia, 1823), 363-370.
Le Beau. Hist, du Bas-Einp. en coinmen<;. a Constantin. T. 1-21, Par. 1757-1781, Cont. par (II. P.) Ameiltron.
T. 22-26, Par. 17S1-J.807. T. 2711.5. do. 1811. 8'' (28 vols.). Nouv. cd. ed. St. Martin. T. 1-13, Par. 1824-
1832. Cont. Brosset, T. 14-21, Par. 1833-1836. 8°.
(Lefort DE la Moriniere, Adrien Claude.) Histoire ahregcc du rlgne de Constantin empercHr d' Orient
et d' Occident. Par. 1756. 12°.
Lentnek, Gottfr. Christ. Dissertatio de Constantino Magno nan ex rationibus politicis christiano. 4".
Lipsia;, 1 714. Cf. note under Haenisius. Yet the author regards the prtvses of a preceding dissertation as author,
and the piurses here is printed in capitals, so Lentner is real author?
Life of Constantine the Great. In Christ. Rev. 4 (1839), 20I.
Literary and Theological Review (1839), 541.
Luri, Ant, Mar. Theses historica, chronolog., crictiae, philolog., &=€., ad vitam s. Constantini Magni imper.
attg. Panormi, 1736. 4°.
Dissertaz. lett. ed. alt. opcr. i (1785), 267-292, in Gori, Symbols; Utter. IX. (Florent. 1752), 133-176.
Mabrun. Constantinus Magnus sive idolatria debellata. Par. 1658. 4°. Latin poem.
Mamachi, Thom. Mar. De crtice Constantino visa &= de evangelica chronotaxi. Florentiae, 1738. 8°.
Manso, Joh. Casp. Frdr, Lehen Constantins des Grossen, nehst einigen Abhandliingen geschichtlichen In-
halts. Breslau, 1817, 8"; Wien, 1819. 8°.
Marcay, de. Histoire de Cotistantin le Grand. Limoges, 1873, 8°, 126 pp.
Martens. Die falsche General- Konzession Jionstantins. Miinchen (Leipzig), 1889, 8°. Contains especially
convenient reprint, with commentary.
. Die roi/iische Frage unter Pipin und Karl dem Grossen, p. 327 sq. Says donation arose after 800,
in last years of Charlemagne or beginning of Louis. IVieland, p. 141.
. Die drei unechten Kapitel der Vita Hadrian. In Tubingen Theol. Quartalschrift (1886), 6or.
. Heinrich IV. und Gregor VII. nach der Schilderiing von Ranhe's JVeltgeschichte. Kritische
Betrachtungen. Danzig, 1887.
Martini, E. D. A. l/eber die Einfii/irung der christlichen Religio7i als Staatsreligion im romischen Reiche
durcli den Kaiser Constantin. Miinchen, 1813. 4°, 48 pp.
Mas, Auguste. Hempcreur d'Arles. In Mem. de I'acad. de Vaucluse, IV. (1885), 197-213. Rev. of Alex.
Mouzin's " drama in verse." Treats early events. Very full description and analysis of poem.
Mercersbwg Review, 12 (1850), 173.
Meyer, P. In Festschrift d. Gymn. Adolfinum zu Moers. Bonn, 1882. 4°. .So noted; but the editor's
copy of this Testschrift contains nothing by Meyer, while the separately printed De J'ita Constantini Etisebiana,
by Meyer, paged 23-28, which is at hand, has no indication of its origin and may be from Program.
MiLLERUS, JOANN. Martinus. De fide Constantini Magni hand dubie Christiana. Dissertatio (prKS. Jo.
Frickii) e fontibus genuinis . . . Ulmns (1613), 4°, p. (4) 62. (A^t^/ Frick ?)
MoLiNET, Cl. In Ephemer. erudit. Parisien. (1681), Eph. XI. Dissertatio de veritate Crucis a Constantino
visa; ex numis antiquis confirmata.
Moller, Dan. Guil. Disputatio de labaro Constantiniano. Altorf, 1696. 4°.
MONOD, Paul. La politique religieuse de Constantin. Montaubon, 1886. 8°.
MORIN, Jean. Histoire de la deliverance de Teglise chretienne par Pempereiir Constantin et de la grandeur
et souverainete temporelle donnee h Teglise Romaine par les rays de France. Par. 1 630. Fol. A translation of
Eusebius' Life of Constantine.
MouziN, Alex. Cf. Mas, Aug., in Mem, acad. Vaucluse, iSRi^, IV. 197-213.
MiJHLBACHER, E. In Mitth. Inst, oster. Geschforsch (1881;, 2. 11 5- 116.
MiJNCH, Ernst. Jos. Herm. Uber die Schenkung Constantin' s, beitrag zur Literatur u. Kritik der Quellen
des kanonischen Rechts u. der Kirchengeschichte. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1824. 8°, 102 pp. Also in Vermischte
Schriften, Ludwigsburg, 1828, p. 1 85-.
462 PROLEGOMENA.
MusSET, Georges. Encore les statues eqiieslres au portail des eglises. In Rev. Poitev. et Saint. (1886),
71-76. Thinks Arbellot has not solved the question.
Nestius, Jacob. Apologia pro Constantino Magna. In Miscell. Lipsien. nova (1716), II. 471-476.
Neve, Felix. Constantin et Theodose devani les eglises orientates, etude tiree des sources greeques ct armeni-
ennes, in Rev. catholiq. E. III. (1857), 356-364, 401-414, 507-521. Louvain, 1857. 8°.
NiCOLAl, JoAX. De Constantini />aptisino, ii!>i, qiiando ct a quo fuerit celebratus, historica dissertatio. Paris,
1680. 12°, 266 pp. (1690, Vogt.)
Ohnesorge, W. Der Anonymus J'alesii de Constantino. 1S85. 8°, 1 12 pp. Reviewed at length by Fr.
Gorres, in Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 29 (1886), 504-512. It is, in fact, a most interesting and exhaustive study of the
document.
Ongaroni, Franc. Dissertationes III. de viorilius et religione Consta7itini Magni, de Juliani religione et
^estis, deque tetitpli I/ierosolyniitani instauratione ab eodcin Juliano atteittata et di^'initus impcdita. Mediolani,
1778. 4°. '
OORDT, J. \\'. G. \'an. Constantijn de Groote en zijne iioorgatigers, cine stiidie over den Romeinschen keize'r-
tijde. I Deel. Haarlem, 1868. 8", x, 383 pp. This first part takes only to Antoninus Pius.
Origine della Donazione di Costantino secundo il DoUinger. In Civilita cattolica, Ser. 5, v. 10 (1864), 303-330.
Papehrochuls. Comment, liistor. In Acta s. s. Bolland. Mail V. (1685), 12-27 pl- ^-f- Ju"- P- '6-.
Penon. Des monnaies de Conslantiu-lc-Graiid relatives h la Provence. In Rep. trav. soc. statist. Marseille.
28 (1866), 176-182. Such as relate to coinage at Aries.
Peahi.er. Trad. fr. I/istoire de Constantin le Grand ct de son siicle. 1862. 8°, 202 pp.
(PiLATi, C. Ant.) Gesch. d. Ver'dnderungen in d. Regierungu d. Gesetzen u. d. nienschl. Geiste von Constan-
tins Bekehrung an his aitf d. Untergang d. westrom-Reichs. A. d. Franz. Leipz. 1784.
Pi.AiE, W. Constantinus I. In Smith, Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Biog. I (1S59), 831-S37.
POLUS, Regin. . . . De haptismo Constantini Magni imper. . . . RoniLi?, Paul Manut, 1562, 4°; Dilingse,
1562, 8°; Venet. 1563, 4°; Lovanii, 1567, fol.
Prologue and ep'ilogue to tlic last nezv play, Constan the Great [by N. Lee], s. e. (16S3), one leaf, ful.
I^LLAYE, LfeoNCE DE LA. De la donation de Constantin d'apres le Dr. Docllinger Y\.e. Papst leg.']. In Le
Monde (1864), Juillet, 3, p. 3-4; Juillet, 7, p. 3-4. Review, but has value of an original article. Origin in France.
La rappresentatione di Costantino imperatorc et di San Silvcstro Papa, ct di Santa Elena Imperatrice. Stam-
pata in Siena, con licenza de' superiori, et ristampata in Orvieto. [1550?? B. M. Catal.; Fierenze, 1562, 4*^; do.
1588. 4°.]
Reign of Constantine the Great. In Dublin Rev, 1857. XLII. 490.
Reiskius, Joannes. (Program.) 1681. 4°.
Reumont, Alfred vox. Constantin der Grosse. In his Gesch. d. Stadt Rom, i (Berlin, 1867), B. 3, Abschn.
2 = p. 595-646. p. 859-860 has a Chronological table of reign of Constantine.
Revellat, J. P. Notice stir une remarquable particularite que presente toute une scrie de milliaires de Con-
stantin le Grand. In Rev. archeolog. 1883, c. 11. 39-48, 69-78, 148-155; Par. 188-. 8°. Cf. Thedenat, H. in
Bull, critiq. 1885, vi. 69-73. The name of Maximian removed.
Richardson, Samuel. The necessity of toleration in matters of religion . . . Here also is the copy of the
Edict of the Emperors Constantine and Licinius. Lend. 1647, p. (2) 21 (i). Edict, p. 1-3.
RiCHTER, IIeixricii. Das westromische Reich. Berlin, 1865. 8°, p. 31-101, " Die rumischen Kaiser Und die
christliche Kirche von Diocletian bis zum Tode Constantins I."
Ro.MANE, Alfred. Essai sur Constantin ct ses rapports avec Veglise chretienne. These presentee \ la Faculte
de theologie protestante de Strasbourg. Strasbourg, 1867. 8°, p. (2) 114. Study of relation of church and state
in fourth century. Does not find one solitary evidence of regenerate life in Constantine. He had no religion but his
policy.
RossiGNOL, Jean. Pierre. Virgile et Constantin le Grand, i^ p. Paris, 1S45. 8^. Premiere partic, p. (2)
xxxvi, 351 (i). Examines Eclogue of Virgil found in C.'s Oration and arrives at conclusion that " beyond a doubt "
Constantine did not write the oration, but Eusebius " le coupable c'est Eusebe."
RouiLi.E, Joannes Ludovicus du. Oral, posterior de Constantino Magna dicta . . . III. Nonas. Februarii,
No. c/d, iDcii. Delfis. ... 4°, 14 pp. Brief, rhetorical, eulogistic, worthless.
RoYON, Jas. C. Hist, du Bas-Empire depuis Constantin. v. 1-4. Paris, xii-1803. 8°.
Sagittarius, Joii. Christfried. Dissertatio histor. de Constantino Magno. Jenre, 1650. 4°.
Sandinus, Ant. Disput. histor. (1742), 135-149.
St. Victor, Leonard de. Fondation de Constantinople. In .\nal. Jur. Pontif. XH. (1873), col. 402-414.
• Apparition de la croix h Vemper. Constantin. In Anal, juris pontif. XII. (1S73), 389-401.
Moyen d'accorder Lactance avec Eusebe. Written middle of last century; MSS. in Bibl. Nat.
ScHAFF, P. Constantine the Great and the Downfall of Paganism in the Roman E/npire. In Biblioth. Sac.
1863; XX. 778. Review of Burckhardt, Keim, and Stanley's Eastern Church.
CONSTANTINK THE GREAT. 463
ScHEKFER-BoicllORST, V. A\'Ut're Forsttc/iinigen iihcr (He konstantinische Schenkung. In Mtthlgn. tics Inst. f.
oesterreich. Geschichtsforschg. lo (1SS9), 302-325.
ScilELSTKAl'K, E.MANUEL, Anliq. illitst. cifca Concil Gen., etc., et prircipuci Ir. Hist. 7-lciies. Cog. Antv. iCijS,
p. II, diss III. c. \'I. De baptismo Constantiiii nuiii RimiK a S. Silvestro nuiii Nicomediai ab Eusebio collatus fiiit,
an ])olius et Romixi et NicomediLx:.
JJie Schenkung Constant! ii's. Mainz, 1S66. 8^\ Translated from CivilitSi Cattolica.
SCHMIDIUS, Jo. Andr. In hist. Ser. IV. fabulis Variorum, etc. Ilelmst. 171 2. 4° (Conradus resp.).
Schmidt, O. Zur Beurtkeiiung Constuntins des Grossen. Duisberg, 1S63. 4°. Progr.
SCHOErFLIN. Constantinus Mngnus nan ftiit hrilannus. In Commeiitationes historic;u. Basil, 1 741. 4°.
SciiRoECKil, J. M. Leben des Kaisers Constaiilin des Grossen. In his Allgemeine Biographic. C'f. Num. 66.
SCHULTZE, Viktor. Untersuchungen znr Gcscliichle Konstantin's des Cr. In Ztschr. f. Kirchengeschichte, 7
(1885), 343-371; 8 (1S86), 517-542. I. Die romische Bildsaule niit dem Kreuze. 2. Die Tempelbauten in Kon-
stantinopel. 3. Die Inschrift von Ilispelluni. 4. Konstantin und die Ilaruspicen. 5. Der Staat and das Osfer-
wesen. 6. Der Untergang des Licinius.
SCHURZFLEISCH, CoNR. Sam. Qtuc sit Vera origo imperii Rom. clirisliani. In his Controverss, XXXV.
. Dissertatio de primo christianorum imperatore. WittebergiK, 1679. 4°, 52 pp. (praes. M.
Difenbach).
SCHWARZ. C£>//<o-. ///j/cr. 8 (1737), 436-715.
ScuLTETUS, Abrah. Confittatio Cces. Baronii de baptismo Cottstantini Magni. Neustadii, 1607. 4'-^.
Seeberg. Ziir konstantinischen Schenkung. In Theol. Literaturblatt, 1S90, cols. 25-27, 33-36, 41-45. Rev.
of Friedrich.
Seeck, Otto. Quellen nnd Urkunden iiber die Aiifange des DonalisDins. In Ztschr. f. Kirchenges. 10 (18S9),
505-568. A very systematic and interesting examination of sources.
■ — . Die VerivandteniJiorde Constantin's des Grossen. In Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 33 (1S90), 63-77.
While disclaiming any attempt to whitewash Constantine, he finds his conduct not incompatible with being a good
Christian.
Sevestre. Diet, patrol. I. (1S61), 1137-1148.
Simonides, Constant. Panegyric of that holy and apostolic heaven-crowned King Constantine the Great.
London, 1S54. S*^.
Smith, W. Browning. Constantine. In Enc. Brit. 6 (1878), 298-301.
Sou KG V, I. I. Moscow, 1810. In Russian.
Staffer, Edm. Constautin I. In Lichtenberger, Encycl. des. sciences rel. 3 (1878), 388-393.
Steuchus, August. Contra Laurent Valla. De falsa donatione Constantini . . . Lugduni Bat. 1545,8°;
1547. 4°.
Streso, J. A. Konstantijn de Groote en Karel de Groote. Arnhem, 1 836. 8°.
Struve, Bern. Gottii. Bibl. hist. V. (1790), i, 178-207.
. Dissertatio de Constantiijo Magno c.x rationilnis politicis christiano. Jenoe, 1713. 4°. See Hesse.
Suchier. Disputationis de Zosiini et Eiisehii, historiartim scriptoruvi in Constantini Magni imperatoris
rebus exponendis fde etauctoritate, part 1. Ilersfeld, 1856. 4°. 25 pp. Gymn. Progr.
. Quale!?! Eusehius Constantinum Magnum imperatorem adumbraverat, paucis exponitur. Ilersfeld,
1857. 4°, 36 pp.
SuHR, Balthus. Joachim. Constantini Magni signo crucis Christi in mdnbus viso, ad Christianismum
inauguratus (prses. J. J. Weidner). Rostochii, 1 703. (Suhr, not Weidner?)
Tacut, Gulielmus. Oratio in Donationem Constantini Magni nomine falso Jactafam. Delphis, 1726. 4".
Do. Rom. 1755. No use.
Tentzel, Guil. Ern. Exajnen fabula: Ro!nan<E de ditplici baptismo Constantini Magni. Witteberge,
1683. 4°.
Thielmann, Ueber Sprache und Kritik des libellus de Constantino Magna ejusque matre Helena. In Blatter
f. d. bayerische Gymnasialwesen, 16 (1S80), 124-
Thierry, Amad]<:e. Constautin en Gaule. In Acad. d. sciences mor. et polit., 9 (1846), 349-364. Pleasantly
written resume of the period, with not very exact characterization of Constantine in very attractive style.
• XL (1847), 374-387- Ei-agment d'histoire sur la politique chretienne de Constautin. Takes
the heathen side. Neat rhetorically.
Thomasius, Christ. De Jide scriptorwn Constantini Magni. In Observatt Hallens. XXII. i. Treats espe-
cially Zosimus. Cf. Vogt. p. 15-16.
• In fibulas de parentibus Constantini Magni. In Obs. Hall.T. I, n. 23, p. 377-388.
Tillemont. Histoire des empereurs, 4 (1697), 76-381, 613-664.
TIRABOSCHI. Star. lett. Ital. II. (1806), 373-377, 457.
ToBLER, Adolf. Kaiser Constantinus als betrogner Ehemann. In Jahrb. Roman. Engl. Lit. 13 (= N.F.I.)
(1874), 104-108. Various allusions in old French poetry.
464 PROLEGOMENA.
TODERINI, GiAMBATT. La Costantiniana apparizione della croce difesa contro ... G. A. Fabrico. Venezia,
1773- 4°.
Trescho, Leb. F. Beih-. iib. einige Vorwurfe wider d. Ksr. Constantin d. Gr. In his Brr. lib. d. neueste
theol. Literat. II. 360-.
Unger, Friedrich Wilhelm. Die Banten Constantin'' s des Grossen am heiligen Grabe zu Jerusaletn. Got-
tingen, 1866. 8°. iv, 128 pp. Abdruck aus Benfey, Th., Orient, u. Occid. II. 177-232, 385-466. He thinks to
demonstrate that a part of the Haram in Jerusalem has indisputable evidences of Constantinian origin. He seems
to build dangerously much on Fergusson (Lond. 1847).
Valentini. // codice di Eusebio della Biblioteca Queriniana di Brescia illustrato. In Commentari dell'
Ateneo di Brescia, 1885, p. 20-32 (?).
Valla, Laurentius. De falso credita et cmeniita donatione Constantini. For various editions, see Graesse,
vol. 6. 2, p. 249, and the Etude of Bonneau. The edition of 1520 is usually cited as princeps, for the first edition
was published clandestinely by Ulrich von Hutten in 1517. A convenient one is that with translation by Bonneau,
Paris, 1879. It was written in the middle of the fifteenth century, and for venturing to deny the authority of the
Donation, the author was obliged to flee in disguise from Rome.
Varenne, Bernard de. Histoirc de Constantin le Grand, ler empereur chretien. Par. 1728. 4°.
Valois, Charles de. Discours dans lequcl on pretend faire voir que les medailles qui portent pour legende :
F. CI. Constantinus ytin N. C. n'apartiennent point iz Constantin le jeitne fits de Constantin le Grand. In Soc. trav.
Acad, inscr. et belles let. 4°. V. 3. Maintains that all such medals belong to a brother of Constantine, and not
to his son.
Vedelius, NicolAUS. De episcopatu Constantini Magni sen de potestate magistratuttm Fe/ormatorum circa
res Ecclesiasticas dissertatio. Repetita cum responsione ad interrogata quKdam. Franekense, Apud Uldericum
Balck, 1642. p. (48) 143. Nature indicated by sub-title. Takes as text Constantine's remark that he, too, was a
bishop. (V. c. 4, 24.)
ViNCENTius Belvacensis. Spec. hist. XIV. I, 43-44, 47-58, 102.
ViscoNTL Sopra la cristianita di Costantino Alagno, diinonstrata co monumenti e con le medaglie. ... In
Atti Accad. Rom. Archeol. VI. (1835), 207-228. "Sopra il ninibo usato ne' ritiatti di esso imperatore."
VoGT, JOH. Ilistoria litteraria Constantini Magni, plus centum ct quinquaginta rerum Constantinianarutn
Scriptores sisteus. Hamburg!, Apud Viduam B. Schilleri & J. C. Kisnerum, 1720.
Compare for older literature on Constantine. There is long account of literature by topics.
VoiGT, GoTTFR. Vita Constantini Magni disputatione historica descripta. Rostochii, 1675. 4°.
VoiGT, MORITZ. Drei epigraphische Constitutionen Constantin'' s des Grossen und ein epigraphisches Rescript des
prcrf. Pnvt. Ablavius. . . . Leipzig, i860. 8'-\ ix. (l) 242. The documents occupy to p. 42. The remainder
of the work taken up with an essay on the Pagi and Vici of the Roman Empire.
Walch, Chr. Guil. Franc. De tois fiuo) ttjs eKK\r)<Ttas et Tois tKTos Constantini Magni Commentatio. D. II.
August, MCCDLXXXIH. lecta. In Comment. Soc. Reg. Sci. Gotting. vi. 2, 1783-84 (Got. 1785), 81-106.
Separate title-page to part 2, dated 1784. Is a discussion of Constantin's famous saying. Gives passim many
references to writers who have discussed the question.
Walther, Balthas. Diatribe elenchetica de imperatoris Constantini Magni baptismo, donatione et legatione
ad concilium A^icccnuin. Jence, 1816. 12'-'.
Wecnekis, Joh. Ernestl'S. Constantinus Magnus Imperator, Maximorum postulatus criminum, sed potiori
parte absolutus ex Judiciali Gen. (Prses. Georgi Casp. Kirchmaieri.) Wittenbergae, 1698, 16 pp. Note title.
Weidnek, JdHAN. JOACH. (resp. Johannes Goethe). Dissertatio historica de Constantifio Magno qua ilium
honeste S^ ex legitimo matrimonio natum contra G. Arnoldum vindicatur ac defenditur. Rostochii, 1702. 4^,
p. (2) 34. Weidncr is prases. The dedication is by Goethe to his father, and Goethe is called author by the
British Museum Catalogue.
■ Constantinus Magnus superatis juventcr discriminibus legitimus tatidem patris Constantii suc-
cessor. 1702; ib. 1703, p. (4) 40. Accorded to Wcidner by Vogt. "Burck" is respondant, and seems by preface
to be author, but ?
■ Dissertatio de Constantino Magno Signo crucis Christi in tiubibus viso ad Christianismum
inaugurate, ib. 1703. 4*-.
Weilanu, L. Die constantinische Schenkung. In Ztschr. f. Kirchenrecht, 22, (1887), 137-160; 22^ (1888),
185-210. Origin was between 813 and 875 and was by contemporary of Hadrian I.
Weknsixiki', Jo. Chr. D. de visu Constantini Magni locus Eumcnii Rhetoris capite xxi. Panegyrici Constan-
tini dictus explicatus. In Stosch. Ferd., Museum Crit. II n. (Lcmgoviae, 1778), 131-187. Shows that the
" appearance related by Eumenius (as taking place in Gaul) is the same as that referred to by Eusebius."
Wernsdorf, E. F. De Constantini Magni religione Paschali ad Euseb. de vita Const. M. b. iv. c. 22. Witte-
bergx% 1758. 4<=, ])p. 24. Constantine's piety exemplified in his paschal observance.
Wekveke, N. van. Trouvaille d' Ermsdorf. MldailUs romaines de Vlpoque de Constantin. p. 440-498.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. 465
Descriptive catalogue of coins and medals found at Emsdorf in 1880, intermingled with discussion. Large number.
Interesting. Also something " In Public, hist. Instit. Luxembourg (1S81-1882), XXXV. 450-476"?
Wksski.okskv, Alex. Le dit de Vempereur Constant. In Romania, 6 (Paris, 1877), 161-198 (cf. G. Paris,
5S8-596), VII. 331. Poem from MS. in Copenhagen. Records three redactions of the story.
Wksii>hai.kn, CoMiE DK. La date de Vavhiement att trone de Constantin le Grand, d^apris Eusibe et les
Dii'daillts. In Revue numismatique (1877), 26-42.
Wkytinc;h, Jo.\nnes Henkicus Arnoldus. Disquisitio historica de Constantino Magno. Daventriae, 1826.
S'". (4) 74 (2). Treats: I. State of empire to death of Augustus; 2. State of empire to death of Constantius
Chlorus; 3. Constantine and his acts; 4. Critical estimate of Constantine.
WiTHOF, Friu. Theou. Dissertatio kistor. defuta Constantini Magni lepra. Lingen, 1767. 4".
Wolff, Joii. Chrtph. Disputatio de %>isione cruets Constantino Magno in ccelo oblatir. Witteb. 1706. 4°.
" 1707" i^Danz); "also in Oelrichs German liter, opusce, II. 303- " {Danz).
WOLTERECK, Chr. Exercitatio critica qua dispiitatiir crucem qiiam in ea'lis vidisse se juravit Constantimts
Magnus Imperator, fuisse naturalem, in I/alone Solari. (Praes. J. A. P'abricius.) Ilamburgi, 1706, pp. 32 and
plate. (A'cs/ Fabricus?)
Wordsworth. Constantine the Great and his sons : Constantinus I, In Smith & Wace. Diet, i (1877),
624-649. Treats Authorities, Life, in three periods, Legislation and Policy, Character and Writings, Vision of
the Cross, and Coins.
Zahn, Thdr. Constantin der Crosse und die Kirche. Hannover, 1876. Gr. 8°, 35 pp.
Zeumer, K. Der alteste Text des Cotistitutum Constantini. Berlin, 1888. In Festgabe fUr Gneist.
Note I. — The number of works which have suggested themselves as really necessary to complete a working
list for the student of Constantine is very great. Some works like Hefele's Conciliengeschichte seem indispensable,
others like IIarnack's article in Herzog, Encykl. on the Konstantinopolitanisches Symbol have a very important
correlative bearing, and ought really to be especially mentioned because the general student would not readily find
them out. Several works on the historical value of Eusebius' Life of Constantine, also should really have been
inserted. The latest of these is :
Crivellucci, A. Delia fede storica di Etisebio nella vita di Costantino : appendice al volume I. della Storia
delle relazioni tra lo stato e la chiesa. Livorno, tip. di Raffaelo Giusti edit. 1888. 8°, 145 pp. Reviewed in Nuova
Antologia, Ser. 3, vol. 21, i Maggio, 1889; by F. Gorres, in Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. -i,!,. i (1890); by V. Schultze,
Theol. Litbl. (1889), Nos. 9, 10. Says that the Hfe of Constantine is no better than an historical novel.
For farther literature on special points compare references in the notes.
Note 2. — The attempt to secure accuracy in the above list has proved one of great difficulty. All references
could not be verified, and as " conjectural emendation " is even more dangerous in bibliography than in textual
criticism, readings have not generally been changed excepting on what seemed actual evidence. The only way to
avoid laying oneself open to criticism in making a bibliography is not to make it. The editor can only say for this
that a great deal of pains has been expended on improving accuracy as well as in gathering titles and annotating.
The difficulty is shown m the fact that the work quoted on the double authority of Oettinger and of Chevalier as
by Janus, proves on securing the work itself, after the list is in plate, to be really by Vogt and dedicated to Janus.
VOL. 1.
Kh
II. -SPECIAL PROLEGOMENA.
§ I. The Life of Constantine.
I . Editions.
The Life is found in the editions of Eusebius (compare list in Dr. McGiffert's Prolego-
mena) of 1544 (p. 117"-), 1612 (p. 301-), 1659, 1672, 1678, 1720 (p. 583-) and 1822
at least. The edition of Heinichen first published in 1830 (p. 1-332, 333-406, 407-500)
and republished in 1S69 : Eusebius Pavipliili Vita Cojistantini et Panegyricus atque Constan-
tini ad sanctorum Coetuni oratio. Recensuit cum annotatione critica atque indicibus denuo
edidit . . . Lipsia, Hermann Mendelssohn, i86g. 8° is the latest and best.
2. Translations.
The editions of Latin translations are very numerous. Basil. 1549, Portesius (V, C. 650-698,
O. C. 698-715, no L. C.) ; Basil, 1557, Musculus (V. C. 158-215, O. C. 217-231, no L. C.) ;
Basil, 1559 (V. C. 650-698, O. C. 698-715) ; Par. 1562, Musculus (V. C. 160-218, O. C.
218-234); Antv. 1568 (?), Christophorson (V. C. 224-306% O. C. 3o6''-326% L. C. 326"-
361) ; Basil, 1570, Portesius (V. C. 862-914, O. C. 915-932) and Christophorson (L. C.
932-971); Paris, 1571, Christophorson (258-341, 341-362, 362-397) J Basil, 1579, Por-
tesius (V. C. 862-914, O. C. 915-932), and Christophorson (L. C. 923-971) ; Paris, 1581 (V. C.
p. 214-297, O. C. 297-317, L. C. 3x7-355) ; Colon. 1581, Christophorson (V. C. 195-268, O. C.
269-286, L. C. 287-317); " 1591 (Grynaeus)"; Basil, 1611 (Grynreus), Christophorson (V. C.
118-170, O. C. 171-184, no L. C.) ; Paris, 1677, Valesius (V. C. 164-232, O. C. 233-248;
L. C. 249-275) ; Frf. ad M. 1695, Valesius (328-465,466-497, 498-549) ; Cambr. 1720 (Read-
ing) Valesius; Cambr. 1746 (Reading) Valesius; 1822 (Zimmermann), Valesius (772-1046,
1047-1117, 1118-1232) ; Par. 1842 (Cailleau). The editions of 1612, 1659, and 1672 at least
also have Latin translations. There is a French translation by J. Morin, Histoire de hi deliv-
rance de P Eglise, ks'c. Par. 1630, fol., and another by Cousin, Par. i6ys, 4°> and 1686, 4°. There
is a German translation by Stroth, Quedlinb. 1799, v. 2, p. 141-468, and one by Molzberger.
Kempten, 1880. For English translations, see the following paragraph.
3. Efig/ish translations.
The first English translation of Eusebius was by Merideth Hanmer (compare Prolegomena
of Dr. McGiffert). The first editions of Hanmer did not contain the Life of Constantine. It is
a little hard to distinguish the early editions, but there were at least three, and perhaps four,
editions (1577 (76), 15S5 (84), 1607, 1619 ?), before there was added in 1637 to the 1636
edition ("fourth edition " not " fifth edition 1650," as Wood, Athence Oxon.), a translation by
U'yc Saltonstall as follows :
Eusebius \ His life of Constantine, \ in foure \ bookes. \ WitJi Constantine' s Oration to the
Clergic 1 ... I London. \ Printed by Thomas Cotes, for Michael Sparke, and are to be \ sold at
the blue Bible in greene Arbour \ idjy ; fol. pp. (2) 1-106 (E), 107-132 (C), 133-163(4) (L. C).
The dedication by the "translator" is signed IVye Saltonstall. This was reprinted: Tendon.
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE. 467
Printed by Abraham Miller, dwelling in Black Friers, id^g. foL, and is probably the same as that
quoted often (e.g. Hoffmann) as 1650. The Life occupies p. 1-74. It was again reprinted,
London, i6j6, fol., it is said, revised and enlarged. The former editions having become exhausted,
it was proposed to re-edit and republish Hanmer's (Saltonstall's) version, but the editor found
it " a work of for greater labor to bring Dr. Hanmer's Translation to an agreement with the
Greek Text o{ Valesiiis' Edition, than to make a New One,'' which latter thing he accordingly
did and did well. It was published in 1682, with the following title :
The I Life \ of \ Constantine \ in four books, \ Written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilus,
Bishop of CcBsarea in \ Palestine ; done into Etiglish from that edition set forth by \ Valesius,
and Printed at Paris in the Year i6^g. \ Together with \ Valesius' s Annotations on the said Life,
which are made \ English, and set at their proper places in the margin. \ Hereto is also annext
the Emperour Constantine's Oration to the \ Convention of the Saints, and Eusebius Pamphilus's
Speech concerning the praises of Constantine, | spoken at his tricennalia. \ Cambridge, \ Printed
by John Hayes, Printer to the Universit}', 1682, {o\. This was published with the 1683 edition
of the History, and so is properly 1683 in spite of title-page. In 1692 this was reprinted with
new general title-page, but otherwise identically the same edition with same sub-titles and same
paging. In 1709 a new edition was published, also with the History, having substantially the
same matter on the title-page but The second editio?t. London. Printed for N. and J. Churchill,
in the Year ijog. In this paging is the same (527-633), but there is preliminary matter added
before the History. This version is said by Crus6 (compare also Dr. McGiffert's Prolegomena)
to be by T. Shorting. Whoever it was by, it was well done and most interesting. In the course
of time, however, it became antiquated in form, and there was added in 1845 to the Bagster
edition of the ecclesiastical historians an anonymous translation :
The \ Life \ of \ the Blessed Emperor \ Co7istantine, \ in four books. | From 306-33^ A.D. \
By \ Eusebius Pamphilus | • . . | London: \ Samiiel Bagster and Sons; | . . • | MDCCCXLV.
8°. p. XX, 380. This translation is in somewhat inflated style, which perhaps represents Eusebius
and Constantine better than a simpler one, but which sometimes out-Herods Herod, as, e.g. in
the oration of Constantine, p. 279, where it takes fourteen English words to express seven Greek
ones, " Far otherwise has it been during the corrupt and lawless period of human life " for " It
was not thus in lawless times." A quotation from Matthew (xxvi. 52) on p. 267 takes eight words
in the original, twelve in the 1881 Revised Version, sixteen in the phrase of Constantine, and
twenty-two in this translation. The translation is made from the edition of Valesius, not the first
of Heinichen, as appears from the division of Bk. i, chap. 10, and similar peculiarities. The present
edition (1890) is a revision of the translation of 1845 founded on the edition of Heinichen.
4. Author and date.
x\lmost no fact of history is unquestioned ; therefore the unquestionable authorship of
Eusebius has been questioned. Some have made the author Macarius (compare Vogt. Hist,
lit. p. 12), evidently on the ground of the letter (3. 52) which the author says was addressed
to himself, but which is to Macarius and others, but there is no real doubt of the Eusebian
authorship. It was written after the death of Constantine (337), and therefore between 337
and 340, when Eusebius died. The interesting hypothesis of Meyer (p. 28) that it was perhaps
written mainly in Constantine's lifetime, at the suggestion and under the direction of Constantine,
to defend him against charges brought, or which might be brought, against him, is worth men-
tioning, although it is more ingenious than probable. The headings of the chapters are by
another, though probably not much later, and a competent hand (cf. Lightfoot).
5. Trustworthiness of Eusebius.
The value of a writer is determined by (i) His sources of knowledge, (2) His own intel-
lectual and moral ability. Again, the criticism of a given work seeks whether the aim pro-
H h 2
468 SPECIAL PROLEGOMENA.
posed for that work has been truly fulfilled. A man who attempts a treatise on Geometry
is not to be criticised because he omits mention of sulphuric acid, or if he purposes a descrip-
tion of Wagner's music, because he does not produce a Helmholtz on Sound. The application
of these principles to Eusebius' Life of Constantine requires brief examination of i. The pro-
posed scope of the work. 2. The character of the sources. 3. The intellectual and moral
competency of Eusebius in the premises.
(i) The Scope of the Work. This is quite definitely outlined (i. 11). In contrast with those
who have recorded the evil deeds of other emperors and thus have " become to those who by
some favor had been kept apart from evil, teachers not of good, but of what should be silenced
in oblivion and darkness," he proposes to record the noble actions of this emperor. He pro-
poses, however, to pass over many things, — his wars, personal bravery, victories, and successes,
his legislative acts, and many other things, and confine himself to such things as have reference to
his religious character. His aim, therefore, is distinctly limited to his religious acts, and it is
not stretching his meaning too far to say, expressly limited to his virtuous actions.
(2) Characte}- of the Sources. The advantages which Eusebius had for knowing of the life
of Constantine, especially of his religious acts, could hardly be surpassed. He lived in the midst
of the events which he records, was personal friend of the emperor, received letters from him
directly, and had every opportunity to gather the other letters and documents which form so
large a part of his history (cf. V. C. i. 10).
(3) Competency of Eiisebitts. Respecting this there is endless controversy. The fullness of
material is unquestionable, the intellectual competency of Eusebius is almost equally so, and
the questionings regard mainly whether the author has made a proper use of material. Opinions
are various, but this does not mean that they are equally well grounded and valuable. Some of
the latest judgments are the most severe. Crivellucci (Livorno, 1888) calls it an historical novel,
and Gorres, in a review of Crivellucci, agrees that it is worth less than the Panegyrics of Eumenius
and Nazarius, which is certainly milder than Manso's (p. 222) "more shameless and lying" than
these. Right or wrong, this is a frequently repeated view. Some (Hely, p. 141) cannot speak
too stroi^ly of the " contempt " which he " deserves," and accuse of " pious fraud " or the next
thiiik to it(Kestner, 1816, p. 67). For farther criticisms consult the works cited by Dr. McGiffert
under Xfterature, and the special works on Eusebius cited in the Literature to Constantine above,
passhn. The criticisms group generally around i. The suppression of the facts respecting the
deaths of Crispus, «Scc., and various others derogatory to Constantine. 2. The eulogistic tone
and coloring of the work, especially the very pietistic saintly sort of flavor given to Constantine.
As to the suppression of facts, note ( i ) That he gives entire warning of his plan. It would
have been artistically and ethically improper, in a work which distinctly sets out with such pur-
pose, to admit that class of facts. It takes more or less from the value of the work, but it does
not reflect on the general trustworthiness of what is said. (2) No similar judgment is passed on
Eutropius, the Victors, Anonymous Valesianus or Zosimus, for not mentioning his pious acts.
(3) A comparison of most biographies of living or recently dead presidents, kings, and em-
perors will be greatly to the advantage, even, of this fourth century eulogist over those of our
boasted critical age.
As to eulogistic and exaggerated tone, observe (i) That it was more or less justified. That
is, the premises of the criticism which are substantially that Constantine was not saintly or pie-
tistic and was non-committal toward Christianity, are false. His extreme testimony is backed by
very general testimony in the election of Constantine to technical saintship. (2) That it com-
pares well with modern eulogists and extremely well with the contemporary Panegyrists of Con-
stantine. (3) That Eusebius takes care frequently to guard his statements by quoting his source,
as in the matter of the vision of the cross, or by ascribing to hearsay.
In general, the work stands very much on the same level as the biographies of generals in the
late civil war, or of presidents, written by admiring members of their staffs or cabinets, incorporat-
THE ORATIONS. 469
ing authentic documents, intending to be truthful, and generally succeeding, but yet full of the
enthusiasm of admiring friendship and inclined not to see, or to extenuate or even suppress, faults
and mistakes. Nevertheless, they are valuable on the positive side as the real testimony to
genuinely believed excellency by those in the position to know intimately. Eusebius is, sub-
stantially, genuine. Such sui)reme hypocrisy as would produce this work, without admiring
respect and after its subject was dead, is inconceivable in him. All the unconscious turns of
phrase show at least a consistent attitude of mind. The work is, in brief, by a competent
author, from ample sources and without intentional falsification or misrepresentation. It prob-
ably represents the current Christian view of the man as accurately and honestly as any biog-
raphy of Lincoln or the Emperor William written within a year or two of their deaths has done.
As we now think of these two men whom doubtless inquisitive criticism might find to have
faults, so the Christians in general and his friend Eusebius in particular probably thought of the
Great Emperor. Compare discussion and literature of the trustworthiness of Eusebius as a
historical writer in the Prolegomena of Dr. McGiffert in this volume.
6. Value of the work.
That the work on any basis but the untenable one of out-and-out forgery should be character-
ized as "worthless" or "a mere romance " or "of less value than the heathen panegyrists" is a
curious bit of psychological performance, for it does precisely what it grounds its contempt for
Eusebius on, — suppresses and exaggerates. Taking the minimum residuum of the most penetrat-
ing criticism, and the work is yet a source of primary value for understanding the man Constantine.
This residuum includes ( i ) The documents which the work contains. These amount at the very least
estimate to more than one-fourth of the whole matter, and the appended oration of Constantine is
nearly as much more. (2) Many facts and details where there could be no possibihty of motive
for falsifying. (3) Much which critical care can draw out of the over-statements of eulogy.
§ 2. Oration of Constantine.
The Editions and Translations of this work are substantially identical with those of the Life.
See above, under Life. The Authenticity of the work has been doubted, and its composition
ascribed to Eusebius or some other Christian writer, but without sufficient reason. It was
appended by Eusebius to his Life of Constantine as specimens of the latter's style (cf. V. C. 4.
32). As such it shows a man of some learning, though learning taken at second hand, it is
thought, from Lactantius and others (cf. Wordsworth's Constantine I.). It was composed in Latin,
and translated into Greek by the special officials appointed for such work (F. C. 4. 32). It was
delivered on Good Friday, but in what year or where is not known. It has been placed before
the year 324 (Ceiller, 130), but the mention of events and the character of the work itself
suggest a considerably later date.
§ 3. Oration of Eusebius.
The Editions and Translations are substantially as those of the Life, above, but some of the
earlier ones do not contain this work. It was delivered in the year 336 (or possibly 335) at
Constantinople, in celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's accession, Constan-
tine himself being present (cf. V. C. 4. 46 and O. C. i). It gave the emperor lively satisfaction,
from which one may safely infer a peculiar taste for combined panegyric and philosophical
theology unless the hypothesis of a double work be true. According to this hypothesis the work
consists of two separate orations, spoken perhaps at different times, the first including chapters
i-io, which are panegyrical in character, and the other chapters 11-18, which are theological
(compare Lightfoot, Eusebius, p. 343 ; also McGift''ert, Prolegomena, p. 43). It is like the oration
of Constantine, a proper part of the Life of Constantine being appended according to his promise
in Bk. 4, ch. 46.
The special points relating to these works are treated in the notes.
CONSTANTINE.
I. THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
II. THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
III. THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
THE TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The Life of Constantine.
BOOK I.
PAGE
Chap. I. — Preface — Of the death of Constantine 48 1
CHAr. II. — The preface continued 481
Chap. III. — How God honors pious princes, but destroys tyrants 482
Chai'. IV. — That God honored Constantine 482
Chap. V. — That he reigned aliove tliirty years, and lived above sixty 482
Chap. VI. — That he was the servant of God, and the conqueror of nations 483
Chap. VII. — Comparison with Cyrus, king of the Persians, and with Alexander of Macedon 483
Chap. VIII. — That he conquered nearly the whole world 483
Chap. IX. — That he was the son of a pious emperor, and bequeathed the power to royal sons 484
Chap. X. — Of the need for this history, and its value for edification 484
Chap. XI. — That his present object is to record only the pious actions of Constantine 484
Chap. XII. — That, like Moses, he was reared in the palaces of kings 485
Chap. XIII. — Of Constantius his father, who refused to imitate Diocletian, Maximian, and Maxentius, in
their persecution of the Christians 485
Chap. XIV. — How Constantius his father, being reproached with poverty by Diocletian, filled his treasury,
and afterwards restored the money to those by whom it had been contributed 486
Chap. XV. — Of the persecution raised by his colleagues 486
''Chap. XVI. — How Constantius, feigning idolatry, expelled those who consented to offer sacrifice, but retained
in his palace all who were willing to confess Christ • 486
•Chap. XVII. — Of his Christian manner of life 487
Chap. XVIII. — That after the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Cons^.anlius became chief Augustus,
and was blessed with a numerous offspring 487
Chap. XIX. — Of his son Constantine, who in his youth accompanied Diocletian into Palestine 487
Chap. XX. — Flight of Constantine to his father, because of the plots of Diocl-etian 488
Chap. XXI. — Death of Constantius, who leaves his son Constantine emperor 488
Chap. XXII. — How, after the burial of Constantius, Constantine was proclaimed Augustus by the army. . . . 488
Chap. XXIII. — A brief notice of the destruction of the tyrants 488
Chap. XXIV, — It was by the will of God that Constantine became possessed of the empire 489
Chap. XXV. — Victories of Constantine over the barbarians and the Britons 489
Chap. XXVI. — How he resolved to deliver Rome from Maxentius 489
»^Chap. XXVII. — That after reflecting on the downfall of those who had worshiped idols, he made choice of
Christianity 489
\ Chap. XXVIII. — How, while he was praying, God sent him a vision of a cross of light in the heavens at
mid-day, with an inscription admonishing him to conquer by that 490
/ Cha?. XXIX. — How the Christ of God appeared to him in his sleep, and commanded him to use in his wars
a standard made in the form of the cross 490
'^Chap. XXX. — The making of the standard of the cross 490
Chap. XXXI. — A description of the standard of the cross, which the Romans now call the Labarum 490
' Chap. XXXII. — How Constantine received instruction, and read the sacred scriptures 491
Chap. XXXIII. — Of the adulterous conduct of Maxentius at Rome 491
Chap. XXXIV. — How the wife of a prefect slew herself for chastity's sake 492
Chap. XXXV. — Massacre of the Roman people by Maxentius 492
Chap. XXXVI. — Magic arts of Maxentius against Constantine; and famine at Rome 492
Chap. XXXVII. — Defeat of Maxentius' armies in Italy 492
Chap. XXXVIII. — Death of Maxentius on the bridge of the Tiber 492
474
CONSTANTINE.
PAGE
Chap. XXXIX. — Constantine's entry into Rome 493
Chap. XL. — Of the statue of Constantine holding a cross, and its inscription 493
Chap. XLI. — Rejoicings throughout the provinces; and Constantine's acts of grace 494
Chap. XLII. — The honors conferred upon bishops, and the building of churches 494
Chap. XLIII. — Constantine's liberality to the poor 494
Chap. XLIV. — How he was present at the synods of bishops 494
Chap. XLV. — His forbearance with unreasonable men 495
Chap. XLVI. — Victories over the barbarians 495
Chap, XLVH. — Death of Maximin, who had attempted a conspiracy, and of others whom Constantine
detected by Divine revelation 495
Chap. XLVIH. — Celebration of Constantine's Decennalia 495
Chap. XLIX. — How Licinius oppressed the East 49"
Chap. L. — How Licinius attempted a conspiracy against Constantine 49"
Chap. LI. — Intrigues of Licinius against the bishops, and his prohibition of synods 49^
Chap. LH. — Banishment of the Christians, and confiscation of their property 49^
Chap. LIH. — Edict that women should not meet with the men in the churches 497
Chap. LIV. — That those who refuse to sacrifice are to be dismissed from military service, and those in prison
not to be fed 497
Chap. LV. — The lawless conduct and covetousness of Licinius 497
Chap. LVI. — At length he undertakes to raise a persecution 497
Chap. LVII. — That Maximian, brought low by a fistulous ulcer with worms, issued an edict in favor of the
Christians 49^
Chap. LVIII. — That Maximin, who had persecuted the Christians, was compelled to fly, and conceal himself
in the disguise of a slave 49^
Chap. LIX. — That Maximin, blinded by disease, issued an edict in favor of the Christians 498
BOOK II.
Chap. I. — Secret persecution by Licinius, who causes some bishops to be put to death at Amasia of Pontus, 500
Chap. 1 1. — Demolition of churches, and butchery of the bishops 5°°
Chap. HI. — How Constantine was stirred in behalf of the Christians thus in danger of persecution 500
Chap. IV. — That Constantine prepared himself for the war by prayer : Licinius by the practice of divination, 501
Chap. V. — What Licinius, while sacrificing in a grove, said concerning idols, and concerning Christ 501
Chap. VI. — An apparition seen in the cities subject to Licinius, as of Constantine's troops passing through
them 502
Chap. VII. — That victory everywhere followed the presence of the standard of the cross in battle 502
Chap. VIII. — That fifty men were selected to carry the cross 5°^
Chap. IX. — That one of the cross-bearers, who fled from his post, was slain: while another, who faithfully
stood his ground, was preserved 5°^
Chai'. X. — Various battles, and Constantine's victories S^^
Chap. XI. — Might, and magic arts of Licinius 5°3
Chap. XII. — How Constantine, after praying in his tabernacle, obtained the victory 5^3
Chap. XIII. — His humane treatment of prisoners 5°3
Chap. XIV. — A farther mention of his prayers in the tabernacle 5°3
Chap. XV. — Treacherous friendship, and idolatrous practices of Licinius 5'-'4
Chap. XVI. — How Licinius counseled his soldiers not to attack the standard of the cross 5°4
CirAP. XVII. — Constantine's victory 5o4
Chap. XVIII. — Death of Licinius, and celebration of the event 5°4
Chap. XIX. — Rejoicings and festivities 5°S
Chap. XX. — Constantine's enactments in favor of the confessors 5°5
Chap. XXI. — His laws concerning martyrs, and concerning ecclesiastical property 5°5
Chap. XXII. — How he won the favor of the people 5°^
Chap. XXIII. — That he declared God to be the author of his prosperity: and concerning his rescripts 506
Chap. XXIV. — Law of Constantine respecting piety towards God, and the Christian religion 506
Chap. XXV. — An illustration from ancient times 5°^
Chap. XXVI. — Of persecuted and persecutors 5^7
Chap. XXVII. — How the persecution became the occasion of calamities to the aggressors 507
Chap. XXVIII. — That God chose Constantine to be the minister of blessing 507
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 475
TAGE
Chap. XXIX. — Constanlinc's expressions of piety towards dod ; and praise of the confessors 507
Chap. XXX. — A law granting release from exile, from service in the courts, and from tlie conliscaliim of
property 5°^
Chap. XXXI. — Release likewise granted to exiles in tlic islands 508
Chap. XXXII. — And to those ignominiously employed in tlie mines and public works 508
Chap. XXXIII. — Concerning those confessors engaged in military service 508
Chap. XXXIV'. — The liberation of free persons condemned to labor in the women's apartments, or to servitude, 508
Chap. XXXV. — Of the inheritance of the property of martyrs and confessors, also of those who had suffered
banishment or confiscation of property 509
Chap. XXXVI. — The Church is declared heir of those who leave no kindred; and tlie gifts of such persons
confirmed 509
Chap. XXXVII. — Lands, gardens, or houses, but not actual produce from them, are to l)c restored 509
Chap. XXXVIII. — In what manner requests should be made for these 509
Chap. XXXIX. — The treasury must restore lands, gardens, and houses to the churches 510
Chap. XL. — The tombs of martyrs and the cemeteries to l)e transferred to the possession of the churches. . . 510
Chap. XLI. — Those who have purchased property belonging to the Church, or received it as a gift, are to
restore it 510
Chap. XLII. — An earnest exhortation to worship God 510
Chap. XLIII. — How the enactments of Constantine were carried into effect 510
Chap. XLIV. — That he promoted Christians to offices of government, and forbade Gentiles in such stations
to offer sacrifice 511
Chap. XLV. — Statutes which forbade sacrifice, and enjoined the building of churches 511
Chap. XLVI. — Constantine's letter to Eusebius and other bishops, respecting the building of churches, with
instructions to repair the old, and erect new ones on a larger scale, with the aid of the provincial
governors 511
Chap. XLVII. — That he wrote a letter in condemnation of idolatry 512
Chap. XLVIII. — Constantine's edict to the people of the provinces concerning the error of polytheism, com-
mencing with some general remarks on virtue and vice 512
Chap. XLIX. — Concerning Constantine's pious father, and the persecutors, Diocletian and Maximian 512
Chap. L. — That the persecution originated on account of the oracle of Apollo, who, it was said, could not
give oracles because of " the righteous men " 512
Chap. LI. — That Constantine, when a youth, heard from him who wrote the persecution edict that "the
righteous men " were the Christians 512
Chap. LII. — The manifold forms of torture and punishment openly practiced against the Christians 513
Chap. LIII. — That the barbarians kindly received the Christians 513
Chap. LIV. — What vengeance overtook those who on account of the oracle raised the persecution 513
Chap. LV. — Constantine gives glory to God, makes grateful acknowledgment of the sign of the cross, and
prays for the churches and people 513
Chap, LVI. — He prays that all may be Christians, but compels none 513
Chap. LVII. — He gives glory to God, who has given light by his Son to those who were in error 514
Chap. LVIII. — He glorifies him again for his government of the universe 514
Chap. LIX. — He gives glory to God, as the constant teacher of good 514
Chap. LX. — An admonition at the close of the edict, that no one should trouble his neighbor 514
Chap. LXI. — How controversies originated at Alexandria through matters relating to Arius 515
Chap. LXH. — Concerning the same Arius, and the Melitians 515
Chap. LXIII. — How Constantine sent a messenger and a letter, concerning peace 515
Chap. LXIV. — Constantine's letter to Alexander the bishop, and Arius the presbyter 515
Chap. LXV. — His continual anxiety for peace 516
Chap. LXVI. — That he also adjusted the controversies which had arisen in Africa 516
Chap. LXVII. — That religion began in the East 516
Chap. LXVIII. — Being grieved by the dissension, he counsels peace 516
Chap. LXIX. — Origin of the controversy between Alexander and Arius, and that these questions ought not
to have been discussed 516
Chap. LXX. — An exhortation to unanimity 517
Chap. LXXI. — There should be no contention in matters which are in themselves of little moment 517
Chap. LXXII. — The excess of his pious concern caused him to shed tears; and his intended journey to the
East was postponed because of these things 518
Chap. LXXIII. — The controversy continues without abatement, even after the receipt of this letter 518
476 CONSTANTINE.
BOOK III.
PAGE
Chap. I. — A comparison of Constantine's piety with the wickedness of the persecutors 519
Chap. II. — Farther remarks on Constantine's piety, and his open testimony to the sign of the cross 520
Chap. III. — Of his picture surmounted by a cross, and having beneath it a dragon 520
Chap. IV. — A farther notice of the controversies raised in Egypt by Arius 520
Chap. V. — Of the disagreement respecting the celebration of Easter 520
Chap. VI. — How he ordered a council to be held at Niccea 5-'
Chap. VII. — Of the general council, at which bishops from all nations were present 521
Chap. VIII. — That the assembly was composed, as in the Acts of the Apostles, of individuals from various
nations 5--^
Chap. IX. — Of the virtue and age of the two hundred and fifty bishops 522
Chap. X. — Council in the palace. Constantine, entering, took his seat in the assembly 522
Chap. XI. — Silence of the council, after some words by the bishop Eusebius 522
Chap. XII. — Constantine's address to the council, concerning peace 523
Chap. XIII. — How he led the dissentient bishops to harmony of sentiment 523
Chap. XIV. — Unanimous declaration of the council concerning faith, and the celebration of Easter 523
Chap. XV. — How Constantine entertained the bishops on the occasion of his Vicennalia 523
Chap. XVI. — Presents to the bishops, and letters to the people generally 524
Chap. XVII. — Constantine's letter to the churches respecting the council at Nicjea 524
Chap. XVIII. — He speaks of their unanimity respecting the feast of Easter, and against the practice of
the Jews 5-4
Chap. XIX. — Exhortation to follow the example of the greater part of the world 525
Chap. XX. — Exhortation to obey the decrees of the council 5^5
Chap. XXI. — Recommendation to the bishops, on their departure, to preserve harmony 525
Chap. XXII. — How he dismissed some, and wrote letters to others, also his presents 526
Chap. XXIII. — How he wrote to the Egyptians, exhorting them to peace 526
Chap. XXIV. — How he wrote frequent letters of a religious character to the bishops and people 526
Chap. XXV. — How he ordered the erection of a church at Jerusalem, in the holy place of our Saviour's
resurrection 5^6
Chap. XXVI. — That the holy sepulchre had been covered with rubbish and with idols by the ungodly 527
Chap. XXVH. — How Constantine commanded the materials of the idol-temple, and the soil itself, to be
removed to a distance 5^7
Chap. XXVHI. — Discovery of the most holy sepulchre 5^7
Chap. XXIX. — How he wrote concerning the erection of a church, both to the governors of the provinces,
and to the bishop of Macarius 5^8
Chap. XXX. — Constantine's letter to Macarius respecting the building of the church of our Saviour 528
Chap. XXXI. — That the building should surpass all the churches in the world in the beauty of its walls, its
columns, and marbles 5^8
Chap. XXXII. — That he instructed the governors concerning tlie beautifying of the roof; also concerning
the workmen, and materials 5^8
Chap. XXXIII. — How the church of our Saviour, the new Jerusalem prophesied of in scripture, was built . . 529
Chap. XXXIV. — Description of the structure of the holy sepulchre 5^9
Chap. XXXV. — Description of the atrium and porticos 5^9
Chap. XXXVI. — Description of the walls, roof, decoration, and gilding of the body of the church 529
Chap. XXXVII. — Description of the double porticos on cither side, and of the three eastern gates 529
Chap. XXXVIII. — Description of the hemisphere, the twelve columns, and their bowls 530
Chap. XX.XIX. — Description of the inner court, the arcades, and porches 530
Chap. XL. — Of the number of his offerings 530
Chap. XLI. — Of the erection of churches in Bethlehem, and on the Mount of Olives 53°
Chap. XMI. — That the Empress Helena, Constantine's mother, having visited this locality fi)r devotional
purposes, built these churches 530
Chap. XLIII. — A farther notice of the churches at Bethlehem 53°
Chap. XLIV. — Of Helena's generosity and beneficent acts 53i
Chap. XLV. — Helena's pious conduct in the churches 53i
Chap. XLVI. — How she made her will, and died at the age of eighty years 531
Chap. XLVII. — How Constantino buried Ins mother, and how he honored her during her life 532
ClLAP. XLVIII. — How he built churches in honor of martyrs, and abolished idolatry at Constantinople 532
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 477
PAGE
Chap. XLIX. — Representation of the cross in the palace, and of Daniel at the public fountains 532
ChaI'. L. — That he erected churches in Nicomedia, and in other cities 532
CllAl'. LI. — Tliat he orilered a church to be built at Mambre 533
CilAr. LII. — Constantine's letter to Eusebius concerning Mambre 533
Chat. LI 1 1. — That the Saviour appeared in this place to Abraham 533
Chai". LIV. — Destruction of idol temples and images everywhere 534
Chap. LV. — Overthrow of an idol temple, and al)olition of licentious practices, at Aphaca in Phcenicia .... 534
Chap. LVI. — Destruction of the temple of yEsculapius at Aigx 535
Chap. LVII. — Ilow the Gentiles abandoned idol-worship, and turned to the knowledge of (lod 535
Chap. LVIII. — How he destroyed the temple of Venus at Ileliopolis, and built the first church in that city. . 535
Chap. LVIX. — Of the disturbance at Antioch by Eustathius 536
Chap. LX. — Constantine's letter to the Antiochians, directing them not to withdraw Eusebius from Cccsarea,
but to seek for some one else 536
Chap. LXI. — The emperor's letter to Eusebius, praising him for his refusing the bishopric of Antit)ch 538
Chap. LXII. — Constantine's letter to the council, deprecating the removal of Eusebius from Ctesarea 538
Chap. LXIII. — IIow he displayed his zeal for the extirpation of heresies 538
Chap. LXIV. — Constantine's edict against the heretics 539
Chap. LXV. — The heretics are deprived of their meeting-places 539
Chap. LXVI. — How, on the discovery of prohibited books among the heretics, many of them return to the
Catholic church 540
BOOK IV.
Chap. I. — How he honored many by presents and promotions 541
Chap. II. — Remission of a fourth part of the taxes 541
Chap. III. — Equalization of the more oppressive taxes 541
Chap. IV. — His liberality, from his private resources, to the losers in suits of a pecuniary nature 541
Chap. V. — Conquest of the Scythians, defeated through the sign of our Saviour 541
Chap. VI. — Conquest of the Sarmatians, consequent on the rebellion of their slaves 542
Chap. VII. — Ambassadors from different barbarous nations receive presents from the emperor 542
Chap. VIII. — That he wrote also to the king of Persia, who had sent him an embassy, on behalf of the
Christians in his realm 542
Chap. IX. — Letter of Constantine Augustus to Sapor, king of the Persians, containing a truly pious confes-
sion of God and Christ 543
Chap. X. — The writer denounces idols, and glorifies God 543
Chap. XI. — Against the tyrants and persecutors; and on the captivity of Valerian 543
Chap. XII. — He declares that, having witnessed the fall of the persecutors, he now rejoices at the peace
enjoyed by the Christians 543
Chap. XIII. — He bespeaks his affectionate interest for the Christians in his country 543
Chap. XIV. — How the zealous prayers of Constantine procured peace to the Christians 544
Chap. XV. — He causes himself to be represented on his coins, and in his portraits, in the attitude of prayer 544
Chap. XVI. — He forbids by law the placing his likeness in idol temples 544
Chap. XVII. — Of his prayers in the palace, and his reading the Holy Scriptures 544
Chap. XVIII. — He enjoins the general observance of the Lord's day, and the day of preparation 544
Chap. XIX. — That he directed even his Pagan soldiers to pray on the Lord's day 545
Chap. XX. — The form of prayer given by Constantine to his soldiers 545
Chap. XXI. — He orders the sign of the Saviour's cross to be engraven on his soldiers' shields 545
Chap. XXII. — Of his zeal in prayer, and the honor he paid to the feast of Easter 545
Chap. XXHI. — How he forbade idolatrous worship, but honored martyrs and the church festivals 545
Chap. XXIV. — That he described himself to be a bishop, in charge of affairs external to the Church 546
Chap. XXV. — Prohibition of sacrifices, of mystic rites, and combats of gladiators; also the licentious wor-
ship of the Nile 546
Chap. XXVI. — Amendment of the law in force respecting childless persons, and of the law of wills 546
Chap. XXVII. — Among other enactments, he decrees that no Christian shall be slave to a Jew, and affirms
the validity of the decisions of councils 547
Chap. XXVIII. — His gifts to the churches, and bounties to virgins, and to the poor 547
Chap. XXIX. — Of Constantine's discourses and declamations 547
Chap. XXX. — That he marked out before a covetous person the measure of a grave and so put him to shame 548
4/8 CONSTANTINE.
PAGE
Chap. XXXI. — That he was derided because of his excessive clemency 54S
Chap. XXXII. — Of Constantine's oration which he wrote to the assembly of the saints 54S
Chap. XXXIII. — How he listened standing to Eusebius' declamation in honor of our Saviour's sepulcher ... 548
Chap, XXXIV. — That he wrote to Eusebius respecting Easter, and respecting copies of the Holy Scriptures 548
Chap. XXXV. — Constantine's letter to Eusebius, in praise of his discourse concerning Easter 549
Chap. XXXVL — Constantine's letter to Eusebius on the preparation of copies of the Holy Scriptures 549
Chap. XXXVII. — How the copies were provided 549
Chap. XXXVIII. — How the market town of Gaza was made a city for its profession of Christianity, and
received the name of Constantia 55°
Chap. XXXIX. — That a place in Phoenicia also was made a city, and in other cities idolatry was abolished,
and churches built 55°
Chap. XL. — That having conferred the dignity of Crcsars on his three sons at the three decennial periods
of his reign, he dedicated the church at Jerusalem 55°
Chap. XLI. — That in the meantime he ordered a council to be convened at Tyre, l^ecause of controversies
raised in Egypt 55°
Chap. XLH. — Constantine's letter to the council at Tyre 550
Chap. XLIII. — Bishops from all the provinces attended the dedication of the church at Jerusalem 551
Chap. XLIV. — Of their reception by tlie notary Marianus; the distribution of money to the poor; and offer-
ings to the Church 55 '
Chap. XLV. — Various discourses by the assembled bishops; also by Eusebius, the writer of this history. . . . 552
Chap. XLVI. — That Eusebius afterwards delivered his description of the Church of the Saviour and a tri-
cennial oration before Constantine himself 552
Chap. XLVII. — That the council at Niccea was held in the twentieth, the dedication of the church at Jeru-
salem in the thirtieth year of Constantine's reign 552
Chap. XLVIII. — That Constantine was displeased with one who praised him excessively 552
Chap. XLIX. — Marriage of his son, Constantius Civsar 553
Chap. L. — Embassy and presents from the Indians 553
Chap. LI. — That Constantine divided the empire between his three sons, whom he had instructed in politics
and religion 553
Chap. LII. — That after they had reached man's estate, he was their guide in piety 553
Chap. LIH. — Having reigned aliout thirty-two years, and lived above sixty, he still had a sound body 554
Chap. LIV. — Of those who abused his extreme lienevolence for avarice and hypocrisy 554
Chap. LV. — Constantine employed himself in composition of various kinds to the close of his life 554
Chap. LVI. — How he took bishops with him on an expedition against the Persians, and took with him a tent
in the form of a church 554
Chap. LVH. — How he received an embassy from the Persians, and kept the night vigil with others at the
feast of Easter 555
Chap. LVIII. — Concerning the building of a church in honor of the apostles at Constantinople 555
Chap. LIX. — Farther description of the same church 555
Chap. LX. — He also erected his own sepulchral monument in this church 555
Chap. LXI. — His sickness at Helenopolis, and prayers respecting his baptism 555
Chap. LXH. — Constantine's appeal to the bishops, requesting tliem to confer upon him the rite of ijaptism. . 556
CllAi'. LXIII. — How after his baptism he rendered thanks to God 556
Chap. LXIV. — Constantine's death at noon on the feast of Pentecost 557
Chap. LXV. — Lamentations of the soldiery and their officers 557
Chap. LXVI. — Removal of the body from Nicomedia to the palace at Constantinople 557
Chap. LXVII. — He received the same honors from the counts and other officers as before his death 557
Chap. LXVIII. — Resolution of the army to confer thenceforward tlie title of Augustus on his sons 557
Chap. LXIX. — Mourning for Constantine at Rome; and the honor paid him there through paintings after
his death 558
Chap. LXX. — His burial by his son Constantius at Constantinople 558
Chap. LXXI. — Sacred service in the church of the Apostles on the occasion of Constantine's funeral 558
Chap. LXXII. — Of the Phrcnix 558
Chap. LXXHI. — How Constantine is represented on coins in the act of ascending to heaven 559
Chap. LXXIV. — The God whom he had honored deservedly honored him in return 559
Chai'. LXXV. — He surpassed all preceding emperors in devotion to God . • 559
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 479
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
PACK
CilAr. I. — Preliminary remarks on the feast of Easter : and how the word of God, having conferred manifold
benefits on mankind, was betrayed by his beneficiaries 561
Chap. II. — An appeal to the church and to his hearers to pardon and correct the errors of his speech 562
CilAr. III. — That God is the Father of the Word, and the Creator of all things: and tiiat material objects
could not continue to exist, were their causes various 562
Chap. IV. — Of the error of idolatrous worship » 563
Chap. V, — That Christ, the Son of God, created all things, and has appointed to everything the term of its
existence 563
Ch.\p. VI. — The falsity of the general opinion respecting fate is proved liy the consideration of human laws,
and by the works of creation, the course of which is not fortuitous, but according to an onlerly arrange-
ment which evinces the design of the Creator 564
Chap. VII. — In regard to things al)ove our comprehension, we should glorify the Creator's wisdom, and
attribute their causes to him alone, and not to chance 565
Chap. VIII. — That God bestows an abundant supply of whatever is suited to the wants of man, and minis-
ters but sparingly to his pleasures; in both cases with a view to his advantage 566
Chap. IX. — Of the philosophers, who fell into mistaken notions, and some of them into danger, by their
desire of universal knowledge. — Also of the doctrines of Plato 566
Chap. X. — Of those who reject the doctrines of philosophers, as well as those of .Scripture: and that we
ought to believe the poets in all things, or disbelieve them in all 567
Chap. XI. — On the coming of our Lord in the flesh; its nature, and cause 568
Chap. XII. — Of those who are ignorant of this mystery; and that their ignorance is voluntary. The liless-
ings which await those who know it, especially such as die in the confession of the faith 570
Chap. XIII, — That there is a necessary difference between created things. That the propensity to good and
evil depends on the will of man: and that, consequently, judgment is a necessary and reasonable thing. . 571
Chap. XIV. — That created nature differs infinitely from uncreated being; to which man makes the nearest
approach by a life of virtue 571
Chap. XV. — Of the Saviour's doctrines and miracles; and the benefits he confers on those who own subjec-
tion to him 572
Chap. XVI. — The coming of Christ was predicted by the prophets; and was ordained to be the overthrow
of idols and idolatrous cities 573
Chap. XVII. — Of the wisdom of Moses, which was an ol)ject of imitation to the \\ise among heathen nations.
Also concerning Daniel and the three children 573
Chap. XVIII. — Of the Erythraean Sibyl, who pointed in a prophetic acrostic at our Lord and His Passion.
The acrostic is " Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross " 574
Ch.^p. XIX. — That this prophecy respecting our Saviour was not the fiction of any member of the Christian
church, but the testimony of the Erythraean Sibyl, whose books were translated into Latin by Cicero
before the -coming of Christ. Also that Virgil makes mention of the same, and of the l>irth of the
Virgin's child : though he spoke obscurely of this mystery, from fear of the ruling powers 575
Chap. XX. — A farther quotation from Virgilius Maro respecting Christ, with its interpretation, showing that
the mystery was indicated therein darkly, as might be expected from a poet 576
Chap. XXI. — That these things cannot have been spoken of a mere man: and that unbelievers, owing to
their ignorance of religion, know not even the origin of their own existence 577
Chap. XXII. — The emperor thankfully ascribes his victories and all other Ijlessings to Christ; and condemns
the conduct of the tyrant Maximin, the violence of whose persecution had enhanced the glory of
religion 578
Chap. XXXIII. — Of Christian conduct. That God is pleased with those who lead a life of virtue: and that
we must expect a judgment and future retribution 578
Chap. XXIV. — Of Decius, Valerian, and Aurelian, who experienced a miserable end in consequence of their
persecution of the church 579
Chap. XXV. — Of Diocletian, who ignobly abdicated the imperial throne, and was terrified by the dread of
lightning for his persecution of the church 579
Chap. XXVI. — The emperor ascribes his personal piety to God; and shows that we are bound to seek suc-
cess from God, and attribute it to him; but to consider mistakes as the result of our own negligence. . . . 580
THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
Prologue to the Oration 581
The Oration. — Chaps. I. — XVIII 582-610
THE LIFE
OF THE
BLESSED EMPEROR CONSTANTINE,
BY
EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI.
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I.
Preface. — Of the Death of Coiistanti7ie.
Already ^ have all mankind united in celebrat-
ing with joyous festivities the completion of the
second and third decennial period of this great
emperor's reign ; already have we ourselves
received him as a triumphant conqueror in the
assembly of God's ministers, and greeted him
with the due meed of praise on the twentieth
anniversary of his reign : - and still more re-
cently we have woven, as it were, garlands of
words, wherewith we encircled his sacred head
in his own palace on his thirtieth anniversary.^
But now, while I desire * to give utterance to
some of the customary sentiments, I stand per-
> Literally " recently " or " not long since," and so it is rendered
by Tr. 1709, Stroth, Molzberger, Valesius ("nuper"), and Por-
tesius. Christophorson and Cousin avoid the awkwardness by cir-
cumlocution or simple omission, while our translator shows his one
characteristic excellence of hitting nearly the unliteral meaning in a
way which is hard to improve.
2 The assembly referred to was the Council of Nicaea. Constan-
tine's vicennial celebration was held at Nicomedia during the session
of the Council at Nicaea (July 25), according to Hieronymus and
others, but celebrated again at Rome the following year. The
speech of Eusebius on this occasion is not preserved. Valesius
thinks the one spoken of in the V. C. 3. 11, as delivered in the
presence of the council, is the one referred to.
3 This oration is the one appended by Eusebius to this Lz/e of
Constantine , and given in this translation (cf. V. C. 4. 46).
* [In the text it is 6 A070?, " my power of speech, or of descrip-
tion, much desires," and so throughout this preface: but this kind
of personification seems scarcely suited to the English idiom. -—
Bag.\ This usage of Logos is most interesting. Both he and his
friend, the emperor, are fond of dwelling on the circles of philo-
sophical thought which center about the word Logos (cf. the Oration
of Constantine, and especially the Vicennial Oration of Eusebius).
" My Logos desires " seems to take the place in ancient philosophi-
cal slang which " personality " or " self" does in modern. In an-
cient usage the word includes "both the ratio and the oratio" (Lid-
dell and Scott), both the thought and its expression, both reasoning
and saying, — the "internal" and "expressed" of the Stoics, fol-
lowed by Philo and early Christian theology. He seems to use
it in the combined sense, ana it makes a pretty good equivalent for
" personality," " my personality desires," &c. The idiom is kept
up through the chapter.
plexed and doubtful which way to turn, being
wholly lost in wonder at the extraordinary spec-
tacle before me. For to whatever quarter I
direct my view, whether to the east, or to the
west, or over the whole world, or toward heaven
itself, everywhere and always I see the blessed
one yet administering the self-samiC empire.
On earth I behold his sons, like some new
reflectors of his brightness, diffusing everywhere
the luster of their father's character,^ and him-
self still living and powerful, and governing all
the affairs of men more completely than ever
before, being multiplied in the succession of his
children. They had indeed had previously the
dignity of Caesars ; ® but now, being invested
with his very self, and graced by his accomplish-
ments, for the excellence of their piety they are
proclaimed by the titles of Sovereign, Augustus,
Worshipful, and Emperor,
CHAPTER n.
The Preface continued.
And I am indeed amazed, when I consider
that he who was but lately visible and present
with us in his mortal body, is still, even after
death, when the natural thought disclaims every-
thing superfluous as unsuitable, most marvelously
endowed with the same imperial dwellings, and
honors, and praises as heretofore.^ But farther.
^ Constantine II., Constantius, and Constans proved on the
whole sorry reflectors of glory.
" The first had been Caesar more than twenty years; the second,
ten; and the third, less than five.
1 Referring to special honors paid after death, as mentioned in
Bk. 4,
VOL. I.
I 1
4S2
CONSTANTINE.
[1.2.
when I raise my thoughts even to the arch of
heaven, and there contemplate his thrice-blessed
soul in communion with God himself, freed
from every mortal and earthly vesture, and shin-
ing in a refulgent robe of light, and when I
perceive that it is no more connected with the
fleeting i:)eriods and occupations of mortal life,
but honored with an ever-blooming crown, and
an immortality of endless and blessed existence,
I stand as it were without power of speech or
thought ^ and unable to utter a single phrase, but
condemning my own weakness, and imposing
silence on myself, I resign the task of speaking
his praises worthily to one who is better able,
even to him who, being the immortal God and
veritable Word, alone has power to confirm his
own sayings.''^
CHAPTER III.
Hoiv God honors Pious Princes, but destroys
Tyrants.
Having given assurance that those who glorify
and honor him will meet with an abundant
recompense at his hands, while those who set
themselves against him as enemies and adversa-
ries will compass the ruin of their own souls, he
has already established the truth of these his
own declarations, having shown on the one hand
the fearful end of those tyrants who denied rmd
opposed him,^ and at the same time having
made it manifest that even the death of his
servant, as well as his life, is worthy of admira-
tion and praise, and justly claims the memorial,
not merely of perishable, but of immortal monu-
ments.
Mankind, devising some consolation for the
frail and precarious duration of human life, have
thought by the erection of monuments to glorify
the memories of their ancestors with immortal
honors. Some have employed the vivid deline-
ations and colors of painting-; some have
carved statues from lifeless blocks of wood ;
while others, by engraving their inscriptions
deep on tablets •' and monuments, have thought
* Here there is play on the word Logos. My logos stands voice-
less and a-logos, " un-logoscd." If the author meant both to refer
to expression, the first relates to the sound, and the second to the
power of construction or comptisition. 'I'lie intcrchangeableness of
the weaving of consecutive tliought in the mind, and the weaving it
in cxurcssed wor<ls, is precisely the question of the " relation of
thought and language," so warmly contested by modern philoso-
phers and philologians (cf. Miiller, Science of Thought, Shedd's
lissays, &c.). Tlie old use of logos for both operations of " binding
together" various ideas into one synthetical form has decided advan-
tages.
^ Here there is again the play on the word Logos. For Euse-
bius phdosophy of the logos, and of Christ as the Logos or Word,
see the second half of his tricennial oration and notes.
' Compare Lacfintius, De wortibus persecutoru'm,\i\{\<:\\Aa\\\i\.-
Icss the aiith<ir had in mind.
' [KTipoyuTow 7pn'/>i?, properly encaustic painting, by means of
melted wax. — /Jd^'.] Compare admir.ible description of the pro-
cess in the Century Dictionary, ed. Whitney, N.Y. 1889, v. a.
'^ KuSm, at first used of triangular t.ableis of wood, brass, or stone
but afterwards of any ins<:ribed " pillars or tablets." Cf. Lexicons. '
to transmit the virtues of those whom they
honored to perpetual remembrance. All these
indeed are perishable, and consumed by the
lapse of time, being representations of the cor-
ruptible body, and not expressing the image of
the immortal soul. And yet these seemed suffi-
cient to those who had no well-grounded hope
of happiness after the termination of this mortal
life. But God, that God, I say, who is the com-
mon Saviour of all, having treasured up with
himself, for those who love godliness, greater
blessings than human thought has conceived,
gives the earnest and first-fruits of future re-
wards even here, assuring in some sort immortal
hopes to mortal eyes. The ancient oracles of
the prophets, delivered to us in the Scripture,
declare this ; the lives of pious men, who shone
in old time with every virtue, bear witness to
posterity of the same ; and our own days prove
it to be true, wherein Const.-vntixe, who alone
of all that ever wielded the Roman power was
the friend of God the Sovereign of all, has ap-
peared to all mankind so clear an example of a
godly life.
CHAPTER IV.
That God honored Constantine.
And God himself, whom Constantine wor-
shiped, has confirmed this truth by the clearest j
manifestations of his will, being present to aid
him ' at the commencement, during the course,
and at the end of his reign, antl holding him up
to the human race as an instructive example of
godliness. Accordingly, by the manifold bless-
ings he has conferred on him, he has distin-
guished him alone of all the sovereigns of whom
we have ever heard as at once a mighty lumi-
nary and most clear-voiced herald of genuine
piety.
CHAPTER V.
That he reigned above Thirty Years, and lived
above Sixty.
With respect to the duration of his reign, God
honored him with three complete periods of ten
years, and something more, extending the whole
term of his mortal life to twice this number of
years.^ And being pleased to make him a rep-
resentative of his own sovereign power, he dis-
played him as the conqueror of the whole race
of tyrants, and the destroyer of those God-
defying giants- of the earth who madly raised
' Whether Sf^iii? is read or 5efid?, with Valesius, " present 10
aid," covers the idea better than " graciously present " (Molz).
' Compare discussion of length of reign and life under Life in
Prolegomena, p. 411.
^ I I'lyai'Tuji'. The persecuting emperors appear to be meant, of
whom there is more mention hereafter. — Bae.\ Refers of course
I. 8.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
483
their impious arms against him, the supreme
King of all. They appeared, so to speak, for
an instant, and then disappeared : while the one
and only true God, when he had enabled his
servant, clad in hea\'enly jxinoply, to stand
singly against many foes, and by his means had
relieved mankind from the multitude of the
ungodly, constituted him a teacher of his wor-
ship to all nations, to testify with a loud voice
in the hearing of all that he acknowledged the
true God, and turned with abhorrence from the
error of them that are no gods.
CHAPTER VI.
That he ivas the Scrvaut of God, and the Con-
queror of Nations.
Thus, like a faithful and good servant, did he
act and testify, openly declaring and confessing
himself the obedient minister of the supreme
King. And God forthwith rewarded him, by
making him ruler and sovereign, and victorious
to such a degree that he alone of all rulers pur-
sued a continual course of conquest, unsubdued
and invincible, and through his trophies a greater
ruler than tradition records ever to have been
before. So dear was he to God, and so blessed ;
so pious and so fortunate in all that he under-
took, that with the greatest facility he obtained
the authority over more nations than any who
had preceded him,^ and yet retained his power,
undisturbed, to the very close of his life.
CHAPTER VH.
Comparison with Cyrus, Kins; of the Persians,
and with Alexander of Macedon.
Ancient history describes Cyrus, king of the
Persians, as by far the most illustrious of all
kings up to his time. And yet if we regard the
end of his days,^ we find it but little corresponded
with his past prosperity, since he met with an
inglorious and dishonorable death at the hands
of a woman."
to the mythical Gigantes who fought against the gods. It is used
in the same sense in which j'Eschylus uses it of Capaneus (Theb.
424), who defied Zeus in declaring that even his thunderbolts should
not keep him out of Thebes.
^ Compare the various wars against Franks, Bructerians, Goths,
Sarmatiaiis and others mentioned in Life in Prolegomena. Com-
pare also chapter S of this book.
1 [Such seems to be the probable meaning of this passage, which
is manifestly corrupt, and of which various emendations have been
proposed. — Bag.\ Perhaps better paraphrased, " But since the test
of blessedness lies not in this, but in his end, we look and find
that this." The key to the idea is found in the remark near the end
of chapter 11. Cf. also note.
- This is the account of Diodorus, who says he was taken prisoner
and crucified by the queen of the " Scythians" (3. it, ed. 1531, f.
80''). Herodotus says that he was slain in battle, but his head cut
off afterwards and dipped in a sack of blood by the queen Tomyris,
who had rejected his suit, the death of whose son he had caused.
Again, the sons of Greece celebrate Alexander
the Macedonian as the conqueror of many and
diverse nations ; yet we find that he was re-
moved by an early death, before he had reached
maturity, being carried off by the effects of
revelry and drunkenness."'' His whole life em-
braced but the space of thirty-two years, and
his reign extended to no more than a third part
of that period. Unsparing as the thunderbolt,
he advanced through streams of blood and re-
duced entire nations and cities, young and old,
to utter slavery, liut when he had scarcely
arrived at the maturity of life, and was lament-
ing the loss of youthful pleasures, death fell
upon him with terrible stroke, and, that he
might not longer outrage the human race, cut
him off in a foreign and hostile land, childless,
without successor, and homeless. His kingdom
too was instantly dismembered, each of his offi-
cers taking away and appropriating a portion
for himself. And yet this man is extolled for
such deeds as these. ^
CHAPTER Vni.
That he eonquered nearly tlie Whole World.
But our emperor began his reign at the time
of life at which the Macedonian died, yet doubled
the length of his life, and trebled the length of
his reign. And instructing his army in the mild
and sober precepts of godliness, he carried his
arms as far as the P>ritons, and the nations that
dwell in the very bosom of the Western ocean.
He subdued likewise all Scythia, though situated
in the remotest North, and divided into num-
berless diverse and barbarous tribes. He even
pushed his conquests to the Blemmyans and
Ethiopians, on the very confines of the South ;
nor did he think the acquisition of the Eastern
nations unworthy his care. In short, diffusing
the effulgence of his holy light to the ends of
the whole world, even to the most distant Indians,
the nations dwelling on the extreme circumfer-
ence of the inhabited earth, he received the sub-
mission of all the rulers,^ governors,'' and satraps
of barbarous nations, who cheerfully welcomed
and saluted him, sending embassies and presents,
and setting the highest value on his acquaintance
and friendship ; insomuch that they honored
him with pictures and statues in their respec-
tive countries, and Constantine alone of all em-
perors was acknowledged and celebrated by all.
Notwithstanding, even among these distant na-
and who had sworn to "give him his fill of blood" (Herod. Bk. i,
§§ 205-214). Xenophon says he died quietly in bed {Cyrop. 8. 7).
3 A malarial fever, but made fatal by drinking at a banquet (cf.
Plut. chaps. 75 and 76, Arrian, Bk. 7).
•* Eusebius' rhetorical purpose makes him unfair to Alexander,
who certainly in comparison with others of his time brought relative
blessing to the conquered (cf. Smith, Diet, i, p. 122).
1 Toparchs or prefects, - Ethnarchs.
I 1 2
484
CONSTANTINE.
[1.8.
tions, he proclaimed the name of his God in his
royal edicts with all boldness.
CHAPTER IX.
Tliat he was the Son of a Pious Emperor, and
bequeathed the Power to Royal Sons.
Nor did he give this testimony in words
merely, while exhibiting failure in his own prac-
tice, l)ut pursued every path of virtue, and was
rich in the varied fruits of godliness. He en-
sured the affection of his friends by magnificent
proofs of liberality; and inasmuch as he gov-
erned on principles of humanity, he caused his
rule to be but lightly felt and acceptable to all
classes of his subjects; until at last, after a long
course of years, and when he was wearied by
his divine labors, the God whom he honored
crowned him with an immortal reward, and
translated him from a transitory kingdom to
that endless life which he has laid up in store
for the souls of his saints, after he had raised
him up three sons to succeed him in his power.
As then the imperial throne had descended to
him from his father, so, by the law of nature, was
it reserved for his children and their descend-
ants, and perpetuated, like some paternal inheri-
tance, to endless generations. And indeed God
himself, who distinguished this blessed prince
with divine honors while yet present with us,
and who has adorned his death with choice
blessings from his own hand, should be the
writer of his actions ; since he has recorded his
labors and successes on heavenly monuments.^
graceful that the memory of Nero, and other
impious and godless tyrants far worse than he,
should meet with dihgent writers to embellish
the relation of their worthless deeds with elegant
language, and record them in voluminous his-
tories, and that I should be silent, to whom God
himself has vouchsafed such an emperor as all
history records not, and has permitted me to
come into his presence, and enjoy his acquaint-
ance and society ? ^
Wherefore, if it is the duty of any one, it cer-
tainly is mine, to make an ample proclamation
of his virtues to all in whom the example of
noble actions is capable of inspiring the love of
God. For some who have written the lives
of worthless characters, and the history of ac-
tions but little tending to the improvement of
morals, from private motives, either love or en-
mity, and possibly in some cases with no better
object than the display of their own learning,
have exaggerated unduly their description of
actions intrinsically base, by a refinement and
elegance of diction.- And thus they have be-
come to those who by the Divine favor had
been kept apart from evil, teachers not of good,
but of what should be silenced in oblivion and
darkness. But my narrative, however unequal
to the greatness of the deeds it has to describe,
will yet derive luster even from the bare relation
of noble actions. And surely the record of con-
duct that has been pleasing to God will afford
a far from unprofitable, indeed a most instruc-
tive study, to persons of well-disposed minds.
CHAPTER X.
Of the Need for this History, and its Value for
Edification.
However, hard as it is to speak worthily of this
blessed character, and though silence were the
safer and less perilous course, nevertheless it is
incumbent on me, if I would escape the charge
of negligence and sloth, to trace as it were a
verbal portraiture, by way of memorial of the
jjious prince, in imitation of the delineations of
human art. Yox I should be ashamed of my-
self were I not to employ my best efforts, feeble
though they be and of little value, in praise of
one who honored God with such surpassing de-
votion. I think too that my work will be on
other grounds both instructive and necessary,
since it will contain a description of those royal
and noble actions which are pleasing to God,
the Sovereign of all. For would it not be dis-
> " The pillars of heaven." — iWo/i (?).
CHAPTER XI.
That his Present Object is to record only the
Pious Actions of Constantinc.
It is my intention, therefore, to pass over the
greater part of the royal deeds of this thrice-
blessed prince; as, for example, his conflicts
and engagements in the field, his personal valor,
his victories and successes against the enemy,
and the many triumphs he obtained : likewise
his provisions for the interests of individuals,
his legislative enactments for the social advan-
tage of his subjects, and a multitude of other
imperial labors which are fresh in the memory
of all ; the design of my present undertaking
being to speak and write of those circumstances
only which have reference to his religious char-
acter.
And since these are themselves of almost
infinite variety, I shall select from the facts
' The Hamster translation, following Valcsius, divides the tenth
chapter, making the eleventh begin at this point.
2 It looks as if there might perhaps be a direct hit at Lactan-
tius here, as having, through " enmity," described actions intrinsi-
cally base ill peculiarly elegant diction; but Lactantius' descriptions
arc naidly more realistic than Eusebius' own.
I- I3-]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
4^5
which have come to my knowledge such as are
most suitable, and worthy of lasting record, and
endeavor to narrate them as briefly as possible.
Henceforward, indeed, there is a full and free
opportunity for celebrating in every way the
praises of this truly blessed prince, which hith-
erto we have been unable to do, on the ground
that we are forbidden to judge any one blessed
before his death,^ because of the uncertain vicis-
situdes of life. Let me implore then the help
of God, and may the inspiring aitl of the heav-
enly Word be with me, while I commence my
history from the very earliest period of his hfe.
CHAPTER Xn.
That like Moses, he was reared in the Palaces
of Kings.
Ancient history relates that a cruel race of
tyrants oppressed the Hebrew nation ; and that
God, who graciously regarded them in their
affliction, provided that the prophet Moses, who
was then an infant, should be brought up in
the very palaces and bosoms of the oppressors,
and instructed in all the wisdom they possessed.
And when in the course of time he had arrived
at manhood, and the time was come for Divine
justice to avenge the wrongs of the afflicted
people, then the prophet of God, in obedience
to the will of a more powerful Lord, forsook
the royal household, and, estranging himself in
word and deed from the tyrants by whom he
had been brought up, openly acknowledging his
true brethren and kinsfolk. Then God, exalting
him to be the leader of the whole nation, de-
livered the Hebrews from the bondage of their
enemies, and inflicted Divine vengeance through
his means on the tyrant race. This ancient
story, though rejected by most as fabulous, has
reached the ears of all. But now the same
God has given to us to be eye-witnesses of
miracles more wonderful than fables, and, from
their recent appearance, more authentic than
any report. For the tyrants of our day have
ventured to war against the Supreme God, and
have sorely afflicted His Church.^ And in the
midst of these, Constantine, who was shortly
to become their destroyer, but at that time of
tender age, and blooming with the down of early
youth, dwelt, as that other servant of God had
done, in the very home of the tyrants,- but
young as he was did not share the manner of
' [Alluding probably to Ecclesiastes xi. 28, " Judge none blessed
before his death; for a man shall be known in his children." Or,
possibly, to the well-known opinion of Solon to the same effect.
Vide Herod, i. 32; Aristot. Eth. Nicom. i. 11. — Bag:] Compare
also above, chapter 7.
' The persecuting emperors. Compare Prolegomena, Li'fe.
- He was brought up with Diocletian and Galcrius. Compare
Prolegomena, Life.
life of the ungodly : for from that early period
his noble nature, under the leading of the Divine
Spirit, inclined him to i)iety and a life accept-
able to God. A desire, moreover, to emulate
the example of his father had its influence in
stimulating the son to a virtuous course of con-
duct. His father was Constantius^ (and we
ought to revive his memory at this time), the
most illustrious emperor of our age ; of whose life
it is necessary briefly to relate a few particulars,
which tell to the honor of his son.
CHAPTER XIII.
Of Constantius his Father, who refused to
imitate Diocletian, Afaxiniian, and Maxen-
tius} in their Persecution of the Christians.
At a time when four emperors^ shared the
administration of the Roman empire, Constan-
tius alone, following a course of conduct differ-
ent from that pursued by his colleagues, entered
into the friendship of the Supreme God.
For while they besieged and wasted the
churches of God, leveling them to the ground,
and obliterating the very foundations of the
houses of prayer,^ he kept his hands pure from
their abominable impiety, and never in any
respect resembled them. They polluted their
provinces by the indiscriminate slaughter of
godly men and women ; but he kept his soul
free from the stain of this crime.^ They, in-
volved in the mazes of impious idolatry, en-
thralled first themselves, and then all under
their authority, in bondage to the errors of evil
demons, while he at the same time originated the
profoundest peace throughout his dominions,
and secured to his subjects the privilege of cele-
brating without hindrance the worship of God.
In short, while his colleagues oppressed all men
by the most grievous exactions, and rendered
their lives intolerable, and even worse than
death, Constantius alone governed his people
with a mild and tranquil sway, and exhibited
towards them a truly parental and fostering care.
Numberless, indeed, are the other virtues of
this man, which are the theme of praise to all ;
of these I will record one or two instances, as
specimens of the quality of those which I must
pass by in silence, and then I will proceed to
the appointed order of my narrative.
3 Constantius Chlorus, Neo-Platonist and philanthropist. Com-
pare following description.
1 The author of the chapter heading means of course Galerius.
Maxentius was not emperor until after the death of Constantius.
- [Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius. — Sag:]
2 For account of these persecutions, see Church History, Bk. 8,
and notes of McGififert.
* Compare the Church History, 8. 13, and Lacfantius, De niort.
pcrs. 15. The latter says he allowed buildings to be destroyed, btit
spared human life.
486
CONSTANTINE.
[I. 14.
CHAPTER XIV.
Ho'iO Constantius his Father, bciiii::; reproached
with Poverty by Diocletian, filled his Treasury,
and afterivards restored the Money to those
by whom it had been contributed.
In consequence of the many reports in cir-
culation respecting this prince, describing his
kindness and gentleness of character, and the
extraordinary elevation of his piety, alleging
too, that by reason of his extreme indulgence
to his subjects, he had not even a supply of
money laid up in his treasury ; the emperor
who at that time occupied the place of supreme
power sent to reprehend his neglect of the pub-
lic weal, at the same time reproaching him with
poverty, and alleging in proof of the charge
the empty state of his treasury. On this he
desired the messengers of the emperor to re-
main with him awhile, and, calling together the
wealthiest of his subjects of all nations under
his dominion, he informed them that he was in
want of money, and that this was the time for
them all to give a voluntary proof of their affec-
tion for their prince.
As soon as they heard this (as though they
had long been desirous of an oj^portunity for
showing the sincerity of their good will), with
zealous alacrity they filled the treasury with gold
and silver and other wealth ; each eager to sur-
pass the rest in the amount of his contribution :
and this they did with cheerful and joyous coun-
tenances. And now Constantius desired the
messengers of the great emperor ^ personally to
inspect his treasures, and directed them to give
a faithful report of what they had seen ; adding,
that on the present occasion he had taken this
money into his own hands, but that it had long
been kept for his use in the custody of the
owners, as securely as if under the charge of
faithful treasurers. The ambassadors were over-
whelmed with astonishment at what they had
witnessed : and on tiieir departure it is said that
the truly generous prince sent for the owners of
the property, and, after commending them sev-
erally for their obedience and true loyalty,
restored it all, and bade them return to their
homes.
This one circimistance, then, conveys a proof
of the generosity of him whose character we are
attempting to illustrate : another will contain the
clearest testimony to his piety.
' Or the senior Augustus. " Diocletian is thus entitled in the
.inoicnt pancRyr's's and in inscriptions." — lleitiichcit.
It was" towards the end of the second centurj- of the Chri.stian
era" that there be^an to be a plurality of Aiii^usti, but " from this
lime we find two or even a greater number of'.l ui^iis/i; and ihounh
in that and in all similar cases the persons honored with the title
were regarded as participators of the imperial power, still the one
who received the tiile first w.is looked upon as the head of the
empire." — Smith, Vtct. Cr. and Rom. Ant.
CHAPTER XV.
Of the Perscci/tion raised by his Colleagues.
By command of the supreme authorities of
the empire, the governors of the several prov-
inces had set on foot a general persecution of
the godly. Indeed, it was from the imperial
courts themselves that the very first of the pious
martyrs proceeded, who passed through those
conflicts for the faith, and most readily endured
both fire and sword, and the depths of the sea ;
every form of death, in short, so that in a brief
time all the royal palaces were bereft of pious
men.^ The result was, that the authors of this
wickedness were entirely deprived of the pro-
tecting care of God, since by their persecution
of his worshipers they at the same time silenced
the prayers that were wont to be made on their
own behalf.
CHAPTER XVI.
How Constantius, feigning Idolatry, expelled
those ivho consented to offer Sacrifice, but re-
tained in his Palace all ivho were willing to
confess Christ.
On the other hand, Constantius conceived an
expedient full of sagacity, and did a thing which
sounds paradoxical, but in fact was most admi-
rable.
He made a proposal to all the officers of his
court, including even those in the highest sta-
tions of authority, offering them the following
alternative : either that they should offer sacri-
fice to demons, and thus be permitted to remain
with him, and enjoy their usual honors ; or, in
case of refusal, that they should be shut out from
all access to his person, and entirely distiualified
from acquaintance and association with him.
Accordingly, when they had individually made
their choice, some one way and some the other,
and the choice of each had been ascertained,
then this admirable prince disclosed the secret
meaning of his expedient, and condemned the
cowardice and selfishness of the one party, while
he highly commended the other for their con-
scientious devotion to God. He declared, too,
that those who had been false to their God must
be unworthy of the confidence of their prince;
for how was it possible that they should preserve
their fidelity to him, who had proved themselves
faithless to a higher power? He determined,
therefore, that such persons should be removed
altogether from the imperial court, while, on the
other hand, declaring that those men who, in
l)earing witness for the truth, had proved them-
' Compare accounts of martyrs in the palaces, in the Church
History, 8. 6.
J
I. 19.]
THE LIFE OE CONSTANTINE.
487
selves to be worthy servants of God, would
manifest the same fidelity to their king, he en-
trusted them with the guardianship of his person
and empire, saying that he was bound to treat
such persons with special regard as his nearest
and most valued friends, and to esteem them
far more highly than the richest treasures.
CHAPTER XVII.
Of his Christian Alanner of Life.
The father of Constantine, then, is said to
have possessed such a character as we have
briefly described. And what kind of death was
vouchsafed to him in consequence of such devo-
tion to Cod, and how far he whom he honored
made his lot to differ from that of his colleagues
in the empire, may be known to any one who
will give his attention to the circumstances of
the case. For after he had for a long time
given many proofs of royal virtue, in acknowl-
edging the Supreme God alone, and condemning
the polytheism of the ungodly, and had fortified
his household by the prayers of holy men,' he
passed the remainder of his life in remarkable
repose and tranquillity, in the enjoyment of
what is counted blessedness, — neither molest-
ing others nor being molested ourselves.
Accordingly, during the whole course of his
quiet and peaceful reign, he dedicated his entire
household, his children, his wife, and domestic
attendants, to the One Supreme God : so that
the company assembled within the walls of his
palace differed in no respect from a church of
God ; wherein were also to be found his min-
isters, who offered continual supplications on
behalf of their prince, and this at a time when,
with most,- it was not allowable to have any
dealings with the worshipers of God, even so
far as to exchange a word with them.
CHAPTER XVIII.
TJiat after the Abdication of Diocletian and
Maxiniian, Constantius became Chief Au-
gustus, and was blessed with a Numerous
Offspring.
The immediate consequence of this conduct
was a recompense from the hand of God, inso-
much that he came into the supreme authority
of the empire. For the older emperors, for
some unknown reason, resigned their power;
1 "Is said to have" is added conjccturally here by an earlier
editor, but Heinichen omits, as it would seem Eusebius himself did.
- Other readings are " with the others," or " with the rest," but
in whatever reading it refers to all the other emperors.
and this sudden change took place in the first
year after their persecution of the churches.'
From that time Constantius alone received
the honors of chief Augustus, having been pre-
viously, indeed, distinguished by the diadem of
the imperial Caesars," among whom he held the
first rank ; but after his worth had been proved
in this capacity, he was invested with the high-
est dignity of the Roman empire, being named
chief Augustus of the four who were afterwards
elected to that honor. Moreover, he surpassed
most of the emperors in regard to the number
of his flimily, having gathered around him a very
large circle of children both male and female.
And, lastly, when he had attained to a happy
old age, and was about to pay the common debt
of nature, and exchange this life for another,
God once more manifested His power in a
special manner on his behalf, by providing that
his eldest son Constantine should be present
during his last moments, and ready to receive
the imperial power from his hands.^
CHAPTER XIX.
Of his Son Constantine, who in his Youth ac-
companied Diocletian into Palestine.
The latter had been with his father's imperial
colleagues,' and had passed his life among them,
as we have said, like God's ancient prophet.
And even in the very earliest period of his youth
lie was judged by them to be worthy of the
highest honor. An instance of this we have
ourselves seen, when he passed through Pales-
tine with the senior emperor,- at Avhose right
hand he stood, and commanded the admiration
of all who beheld him by the indications he
gave even then of royal greatness. For no one
was comparable to him for grace and beauty of
person, or height of stature ; and he so far sur-
passed his compeers in personal strength as to
be a terror to them. He was, however, even
more conspicuous for the excellence of his men-
tal" qualities than for his superior physical
endowments ; being gifted in the first place
with a sound judgment,* and having also reaped
the advantages of a liberal education. He was
' The persecution was in 303 or 304. Compare discussion of
date in Clinton, Fasti Rom. ann. 303-305. The abdication was in
- Eusebius uses the terms Augustus, king, autocrat, and Cssar
with a good deal of interchangeableness. It is hard to tell sometimes
whether king (friao-tAeiJ?) mcnns emperor or Cecsar. In general,
Augustus has been transferred in translations, and king and auto-
crat both rendered emperor, which seems to be his real usage.
" Constantine reached him just before his death, though possibly
some weeks before. Compare Prolegomena.
' Diocletian and Galerius.
- Diocletian. He was on his way to Egypt in the famous cam-
paign against Achilleus in 296-297.
■* Or " psychical," meaning more than intellectual.
* Rather, perhaps. " self-control."
488
CONSTANTINE.
[I. 19.
also distinguished in no ordinary degree both
by natural intelligence and divinely imparted
wisdom.
CHAPTER XX.
Flight of Constantinc to his Father because of
the Plots of Diocletian}
The emperors then in power, observing his
manly and vigorous figure and superior mind,
were moved with feelings of jealousy and fear,
and thenceforward carefully watched for an
opportunity of inflicting some brand of disgrace
on his character. But the young man, being
aware of their designs, the details of which,
through the providence of God, more than once
came to him, sought safety in flight;- in this
respect again keeping up his resemblance to the
great prophet Moses. Indeed, in every sense
God was his helper; and he had before or-
dained that he should be present in readiness
to succeed his father.
CHAPTER XXI.
Death of Constantius, who leaves his Son Con-
stantinc Emperor}
Immediately, therefore, on his escape from
the plots which had been thus insidiously laid
for him, he made his way with all haste to his
fiither, and arrived at length at the very time
that he was lying at the point of death.^ As
soon as Constantius saw his son thus unex-
pectedly in his presence, he leaped from his
couch, embraced him tenderly, and, declaring
that the only anxiety which had troubled him in
the prospect of death, namely, that caused by
the absence of his son, was now removed, he
rendered thanks to God, saying that he now
thought death better than the longest life,^ and
at once completed the arrangement of his private
affairs. Then, taking a final leave of the circle
of sons and daughters by whom he was sur-
rounded, in his own palace, and on the imperial
couch, he bequeathed the empire, according to
the law of nature,* to his eldest son, and breathed
his last.
' Kuscbius himself speaks in the plural, and other writers speak
of plots by both Diocletian and Galerius. Compare Prolegomena.
' Compare detailed account in Lactantius, De M. P. c. 24.
' Bo<TiA<u?. The writer of the chapter headings uses this word
here and Augustus in the following chapter, but it does not seem
to mean technically " Caesar," and so the rendering emperor is
retained.
' This seems to imply that Constantine reached him only after
he was sick in bed, i.e. at York in IJritain; but other accounts make
it probable that he joined him at Boulogne before he sailed on this
last expedition to Uritain. Compare Prolegomena.
' Literally, " than immortality [on earth]."
* It will hardly be agreed that imperial succession is a law
of nature anyw.ay. Rather, " the succession [where it exists] is
established by the express will or the tacit consent of the nation,"
and llic "pretended proprietary right ... is a chimera" (Vattell,
CHAPTER XXII.
How, after the Burial of Cofistantius, Constan-
tine 7vas proclaimed Augustus by the Army.
Nor did the imperial throne remain long un-
occupied : for Constantine invested himself with
his father's purple, and proceeded from his
father's palace, presenting to all a renewal, as
it were, in his own person, of his father's life
and reign. He then conducted the funeral pro-
cession in company with his father's friends,
some preceding, others following the train, and
performed the last ofiices for the pious deceased
with an extraordinary degree of magnificence, and
all united in honoring this thrice blessed prince
with acclamations and praises, and while with one
mind and voice, they glorified the rule of the son
as a living again of him who was dead, they has-
tened at once to hail their new sovereign by the
titles of Imperial and Worshipful Augustus, with
joyful shouts.^ Thus the memory of the deceased
emperor received honor from the praises be-
stowed upon his son, while the latter was pro-
nounced blessed in being the successor of such
a father. All the nations also under his domin-
ion were filled with joy and inexpressible glad-
ness at not being even for a moment deprived
of the benefits of a well ordered government.
In the instance of the Emperor Constantius,
God has made manifest to our generation what
the end of those is who in their lives have
honored and loved him.
CHAPTER XXIII.
A Brief Notice of the Destruction of the Tyrants.
With respect to the other princes, who made
war against the churches of God, I have not
thought it fit in the present work to give any
account of their downfall,' nor to stain the
memory of the good by mentioning them in
connection with those of an opposite character.
The knowledge of the facts themselves will of
itself suffice for the wholesome admonition of
those who have witnessed or heard of the evils
which severally befell them.
Law of Nations, Phila. , 1867, p. 24, 25) • That primogeniture is a nat-
ural law has been often urged, but it seems to be simply the law of first
come first served. The En-lish custom of primogeniture is said to
have risen from the fact that in feudal times the eldest son was the
one who, at the time of the father's death, was of an age to meet
the duties of feudal tenure (compare Kent, Covimoitartes, Boston,
1867, V. 4, p. 420, 421L This is precisely the fact respecting Con-
stantine. His several brothers were all too young to be thought of.
1 The verdict was not confirmed at once. Galerius refused him
the title of emperor, and he contented himself with that of Cxsar for
a little. Compare Prolegomena.
' But he has done this himself in his Church History. Com-
p.Trc also T^aclanlius, Df mortibus pcrsccutorum.
1. 27.]
THK LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
489
CHAPTER XXIV.
It was by the Will of God that Constantine
became possessed of the Empire.
Thus then the God of all, the Supreme Gov-
ernor of the whole universe, by his own will
appointed Constantine, the descendant of so
renowned a parent, to be ]irince and sovereign :
so that, while others have been raised to this
distinction by the election of their fellow-men,
he is the only one to whose elevation no mortal
may boast of having contributed.
CHAPTER XXV.
Victories (f Constantine over the Barbarians
and the Britons.
As soon then as he was established on the
throne, he began to care for the interests of his
paternal inheritance, and visited with much con-
siderate kindness all those provinces which had
previously been under his father's government.
Some tribes of the barbarians who dwelt on the
banks of the Rhine, and the shores of the West-
ern ocean, having ventured to revolt, he reduced
them all to obedience, and brought them from
their savage state to one of gentleness. He
contented himself with checking the inroads of
others, and drove from his dominions, like un-
tamed and savage beasts, those whom he per-
ceived to be altogether incapable of the settled
order of civilized life.^ Having disposed of
these affairs to his satisfaction, he directed his
attention to other quarters of the world, and
first passed over to the British nations," which
lie in the very bosom of the ocean. These he
reduced to submission, and then proceeded to
consider the state of the remaining portions of
the empire, that he might be ready to tender
his aid wherever circumstances might require it.
CHAPTER XXVI.
How he resolved to deliver Rome from
Maxentius.
While, therefore, he regarded the entire world
as one immense body, and perceived that the
head of it all, the royal city of the Roman
empire, was bowed down by the weight of a
tyrannous oppression ; at first he had left the
^ The Franci, Bructeri, &c.
- [Eusebius here speaks of a second expedition of Constantine to
Brit:ain, which is not mentioned by other ancient writers; or he may
have been forgetful or ignorant of the fact that Constantine had
received the imperial authority in Britain itself, Constantius having
died in his palace at York, a.d. 306. Vide Gibbon's Decline and
Fall, chap. 14. — Baj^.'\ It seems to be a part of the confusion
about his crossing to Britain in the first place.
task of liberation to those who governed the
other divisions of the empire, as being his supe-
riors in point of age. But when none of these
proved able to afford relief, and those who had
attempted it had experienced a disastrous ter-
mination of their enterprise,' he said that life
was without enjoyment to him as long as he saw
the imperial city thus afflicted, and prepared
himself for the overthrovval of the tyranny.
CHAPTER XXVII.
That after reflecting on the Do7vnfall of those
who had worsliiped Idols, he made Choice of
Christianity.
Being convinced, however, that he needed
some more powerful aid than his military forces
could afford him, on account of the wicked and
magical enchantments which were so diligently
practiced by the tyrant,^ he sought Divine assist-
ance, deeming the possession of arms and a
numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but
believing the co-operating power of Deity invin-
cible and not to be shaken. He considered,
therefore, on what God he might rely for pro-
tection and assistance. While engaged in this
enquiry, the thought occurred to him, that, of
the many emperors who had preceded him,
those who had rested their hopes in a multitude
of gods, and served them with sacrifices and
offerings, had in the first place been deceived
by flattering predictions, and oracles which
promised them all prosperity, and at last had
met with an unhappy end, while not one of their
gods had stood by to warn them of the impend-
ing wrath of heaven ; while one alone who had
pursued an entirely opposite course, who had
condemned their error, and honored the one
Supreme God during his whole life, had found
him to be the Saviour and Protector of his em-
pire, and the Giver of every good thing. Re-
flecting on this, and well weighing the fact that
they who had trusted in many gods had also
fallen by manifold forms of death, without
leaving behind them either family or offspring,
stock, name, or memorial among men : while
the God of his father had given to him, on the
other hand, manifestations of his power and
very many tokens : and considering farther that
those who had already taken arms against the
tyrant, and had marched to the battle-field under
the protection of a multitude of gods, had met
with a dishonorable end (for one of them- had
shamefully retreated from the contest without a
blow, and the other,'' being slain in the midst of
' Referring to the unsuccessful expeditions of Severus and Gale-
rius.
1 Compare chapters 36 and 37; also Lactantius, De M. P. chap.
44. * Galerius. ^ Severus.
490
CONSTANTINE.
[I. 27.
his own troops, became, as it were, the mere
sport of death *) ; reviewing, I say, all these
considerations, he judged it to be folly indeed
to join in the idle worship of those who were no
gods, and, after such convincing evidence, to
err from the truth ; and therefore felt it incum-
bent on him to honor his father's God alone.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
How, while he was praying, God sent him a
Vision of a Cross of Lii^/it in fhc Heavens at
Mid-day, with an Inscription admonishing him
to conquer by that.
Accordingly he called on him with earnest
prayer and supplications that he would reveal
to him who he was, and stretch forth his right
hand to help him in his present difficulties.
And while he was thus praying with fervent en-
treaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him
from heaven, the account of which it might have
been hard to believe had it been related by any
other person. But since the victorious emperor
himself long afterwards declared it to the writer
of this history,^ when he was honored with his
acquaintance and society, and confirmed his
statement by an oath, who could hesitate to
accredit the relation, especially since the testi-
mony of after-time has established its truth?
He said that about noon, when the day was
already beginning to decline, he saw with his
own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the
heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscrip-
tion, Conquer by this. At this sight he himself
was struck with amazement, and his whole army
also, which followed him on this expedition, and
witnessed the miracle."
♦ This last phrase has exercised the ingenuity of translators
prcitly. This translation does well enough, though one might
hazard " was easily overcome by death," or " was an easy victim
to death."
' Note here the care Eusebius takes to throw off the responsi-
bility for the marvelous. It at the same time goes to show the gen-
tr.d credibility of Eusebius, and some doubt in his mind of the exact
nature and reality of what he records.
- This very circumstantial account has met with doubters from
the very beginning, commencing with Eusebius liimsclf. There are
.ill sorts of explanations, from that of an actual miracle to that of pure
later invention. The fact of some, at least supposed, special
divine manifestation at this time can hardly be denied. It is men-
tioned v.agucly by J'aiieg. 313, and on tlie triumphal arch shortly
after. It is reported as a dream by I^actantius about the same time
willi the erection of the arch, and alluded to in general, but hardly
to be doubled, terms by Nazarius in 321. Moreover, it is witnessed
to by the fact of the standard of the cross whicli was made. As to
the real nature of the manifestation, it has been thought to be as
recorded by Constantine, and if so, as perhaps some natural phe-
nomenon of the sun, or to have been a simple dream, or an hallu-
cinalion. It is hardly profil.able to discuss the possibilities. The
l.ick of contemporary evidence to details and the description of I.ac-
tantnis as a dream is fatal to any idea of a miraculous image with
inscriptions clearly seen by all. Some cross-like arrangement of
the clouds, or a " parahehon," or some sort of a suggestion of a
cross, may have been seen by all, but evidently there was no definite,
vivid, clcjir perception, or it would have been in the mouths of all,
and certainly recorded, or at least it would not have been recorded
as $nmethin^ else by T-actantius. It seems prob.able that the em-
peror, thinking intensely, with all the weight of his great problem
resting on his energetic mind, wondering if the Christian God was
perhaps the God who cuuld help, saw in some suggestive shape oi"
CHAPTER XXIX.
Ho70 the Christ of God appeared to him in his
Sleep, and commanded him to use in his Wars
a Standard made in the Form of the Cross.
He said, moreover, that he doubted within
himself what the import of this apparition could
be. And while he continued to ponder and
reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on ;
then in his sleej:) the Christ of God appeared to
him with the same sign which he had seen in
the heavens, and commanded him to make a
likeness of that sign which he had seen in the
heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all en-
gagements with his enemies.
CHAPTER XXX.
The Making of the Standard of the Cross.
At dawn of day he arose, and communicated
the marvel to his friends : and then, calling to-
gether the workers in gold and precious stones,
he sat in the midst of them, and described to
them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding
them represent it in gold and precious stones.
And this representation I myself have had an
opportunity of seeing.
CHAPTER XXXI.
A Description of the Standard of the Cross,
7uhic/i. the Romans now call the Labarum}
Now it was made in the following manner.
A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the
the clouds or of sunlight the form of a cross, and there flashed out
in his mind in intensest reality the vision of the words, so that for
the niomcnl he was living in the intensest reality of such a vision.
His mind had just that intense activity to which such a thing is
possible or actual. It is like Goethe's famous meeting of his own
self. It is that genius power for the realistic representation of ideal
things. This is not the same exactly as " hallucination," or even
" imagination." The hallucination jirobably came later when Con-
stantine gradually represented to himself and finally to Eusebius the
vivid idea with its sliglit ground, as an objective reality, — a common
phenomenon. Wlien the emperor went to sleep, his brain molecules
vibrating to the forms of his late intense thought, he inevitably
dreamed, and dreaming naturally confirmed his thought. This does
not say that the suggestive form seen, or the idea itself, I'.nd the
direction of the dream itself, were not providential and the work ot
the Holy Spirit, for they were, and were special in charnclcr, and
so miraculous (or why do ideas come?) ; but it is to be feared that
Constantine's own spirit or something else furnished some of the
later details. There is a slight difference of authority as to when
and where the vision took place. The panegyrist seems to make it
before leaving Gaul, and Malalns is inaccurate as usual in having
it happen in a war against the barbarians. For farther discussion
of the subject see monographs under Literature in the Prolegomena,
especially under the names: Baring, Du Voisin, FAnKicii-s, Oi-
RAULT, HeIIMANN, jACfTIfS MaMACHI, Moi.lNET, -St. VICTOR,
SitHK, TonERiNi, Weidfaer, Wernsdorf, Woltereck. The
most concise, clear, and admirable supporter of the account of P-use-
bius. or rather Constantine, as it stands, is Newman, Miracles
(Lond. 1875), 271-286. 1 • I. •
' [From the Bretagnic /(?/■, to raise, or from Inbarva, which, in
the Basque langu.age, still signifies a standard. — Kiddle's Lat. ^"^J-
voc. Lnhnruin. Gibbon declares the derivation and meaning of the
word to be " totally unknown, in spite of the efforts of the critics,
who have inefiectually tortured the Latin, Greek, Spanish, C'eltic,
Teutonic, lllyric, Armenian, &c., in search of an etymology.'' --
Decline ami Fall, chap. 22, note -n- — Dag-I Compare the full
JO
i
THI-: lAVK OV CONSTANTINE.
491
figure of ihc cross by means of a transverse bar
laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed
a wreatli of gold a.nd precious stones ; and
within this,- the symbol of the Saviour's name,
two letters indicating the name of Christ by
means of its initial characters, the letter V being
intersected by X in its centre : ^ and these letters
the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his
helmet at a later period. From the cross-bar
of the spear was suspended a cloth,' a royal
piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of
most brilliant precious stones ; and which, being
also richly interlaced witli gokl, presented an
indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder.
This banner was of a square form, and the up-
right staff, whose lower section was of great
length,^ bore a golden half-lenglh portrait'^ of
the pious emperor and his children on its upper
part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and im-
mediately above the embroidered banner.
The emperor constantly made use of this sign
of salvation as a safeguard against every adverse
and hostile power, and commanded that others
similar to it should be carried at the head of all
his armies.
CHAPTER XXXII.
I/i?7c> Constantinc receti'cd lusfniciion, and read
tlic Sacred Scriptures.
These things were done shortly afterwards.
But at the time above specified, being struck
with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and
resolving to worship no other God save Him
who had appeared to him, he sent for those who
were acquainted with the mysteries of His
doctrines, and enquired who that God was, and
what was intended by the sign of the vision he
liad seen.
They affirmed that He was God, the only
article of Venables, in Smith and Cheetham, Diet, i (18S0), 908-911,
with its references and cuts.
- Thus rather than " on." Compare cuts in article of Venables.
" It [the monogram of Christ] is often set within a crown or palm
branch." — Wolcott, Sacred Archieology, p. 390.
3 [Xta^o/neVov toO p Kara to fk^aa-iTtnov. The figure y^ would
seem to answer to the description in the text. Gibbon gives tvv'o
specimens, ^ and P as engraved from ancient monuments.
Chap. 20, note 35. — Bag.'\ The various coins given by Venables
all have the usual form of the monogram ^ . Compare also
Tyrwhitt, art. Motiogram, in Smith and Cheetham; also the art.
Monogra»iine du Christ, in Martigny, Ditt. d. ant. (iSyy) , 476-483.
* That this was no new invention of Constantine may be seen by
comparing the following description of an ordinary Roman standard,
"... each cohort had for its own ensign the serpent or dragon,
which was woven on a square piece of cloth, elevated on a gilt staff,
to which a cross-bar was adapted for the purpose . . . under the
eagle or other emblem was often placed a head of the reigning em-
peror." Yates, art. S\^/ia vtilitaria, in Smith, Diet. Gr. and
Ront. Aut. (1878), 1044-1045.
5 "Which in its full extent was of great length." — Bag., ac-
cording to suggestion of Valesius of a possible meaning, but better
as above, meaning the part below the cross-bar. So Valesius,
Christof>horsoii, lyoq, Molzhergcr.
s "Medallions." — Venables.
begotten Son of the one and only God : that
the sign which had appeared was the symbol of
immortality,' and the trophy of that victory over
death which He had gained in time past when
sojourning on earlli. They tauglit him also the
causes of His advent, and explained to him the
true account of His incarnation. Thus he was
instructed in these matters, and was impressed
with wonder at the divine manifestation which
had been i)resented to his sight. Comparing,
therefore, the heavenly vision with the interpre-
tation given, he found his judgment confirmed ;
and, in the persuasion that the knowledge of
these things had been imparted to him by
Divine teaching, he determined thenceforth to
devote himself to the reading of the Inspired
writings.
Moreover, he made the priests of God his
counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him
to honor the God who had appeared to him
with all devotion. And after this, being forti-
fied by well-grounded hopes in Him, he has-
tened to quench the threatening fire of tyranny.
CHAPTER XXXHI.
Of the Adulterous Conduct of Maxcntius at
Rome}
For he who had tyrannically possessed him-
self of the imperial city," had proceeded to
great lengths in impiety and wickedness, so as
to venture without hesitation on every vile and
impure action.
For example : he would separate women from
their husbands, and after a time send them back
to them again, and these insults he offered not
to men of mean or obscure condition, but to
those who held the first places in the Roman
senate. Moreover, though he shamefully dis-
honored almost numberless free women, he was
unable to satisfy his ungoverned and intemperate
desires. But ^ when he assayed to corrupt Chris-
tian women also, he could no longer secure
success to his designs, since they chose rather
to submit their lives * to death than yield their
persons to be defiled by him.
1 Both Socrates (5. 17) and Sozomen (7. 15) relate that symbols
of the cross found in a temple of Serapis, on its destruction by Theo-
dosius, were explained by the Christians of the time as symbols of
immortality. Cf. also Suidas (ed. Gasiford, 2 (1834), 3398), s. v.
STdvpot ; Valesius on Socrates and Sozomen; Jablonski, Opiiscula,
I, p. 156-. The study of the pre-christian use of the cross is most
suggestive. It suggests at least that in some way the passion of
our Lord was the realization of some world-principle or " natural
Law."
* Compare the Church History, S. 14.
- I\Iaxentius, made emperor by an uprising of the PrBEtorian
Guards in 306.
3 "For" seems to express the author's real meaning, but both
punctuation of editors and renderings of translators insist on " but."
* Various readings of text add "lawfully married" women, and
send them back again " grievously dishonored," and so Bag., but
Heinichen has this reading. Compare note of Heinichen.
492
CONSTANTINE.
tl- 34.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
How the Wife of a Prefect slew herself for
Chastity's Sake}
Now a certain woman, wife of one of the
senators who held the authority of prefect, when
she understood that those who ministered to the
tyrant in such matters were standing before her
house (she was a Christian), and knew that her
husband through fear had bidden them take her
and lead her away, begged a short space of time
for arraying herself in her usual dress, and
entered her chamber. There, being left alone,
she sheathed a sword in her own breast, and
immediately expired, leaving indeed her dead
body to the procurers, but declaring to all man-
kind, both to present and future generations, by
an act which spoke louder than any words, that
the chastity for Avhich Christians are famed is
the only thing which is invincible and indestruc-
tible. Such was the conduct displayed by this
woman.
CHAPTER XXXV.
Massacre of the Roman People by Maxentius.
All men, therefore, both people and magis-
trates, whether of high or low degree, trembled
through fear of him whose daring wickedness
was such as I have described, and were op-
pressed by his grievous tyranny. Nay, though
they submitted quietly, and endured this bitter
servitude, still there was no escape from the
tyrant's sanguinary cruelty. For at one time,
on some trifling pretense, he exposed the popu-
lace to be slaughtered by his own body-guard ;
and countless multitudes of the Roman people
were slain in the very midst of the city by the
lances and weapons, not of Scythians or bar-
barians, but of their own fellow-citizens. And
besides this, it is impossible to calculate the
number of senators whose blood was shed with
a view to the seizure of their respective estates,
for at different times and on various fictitious
charges, multitudes of them suffered death.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Magic Arts of Maxentius against Constantine ;
and Famine at Rome.
But the crowning point of the tyrant's wicked-
ness was his having recourse to sorcery : some-
times for magic purposes ripping up women
with child, at other times searching into the
' This chapter is found almost word for word in the Church
History, 8. 14.
bowels of new-born infants. He slew lions also,
and practiced certain horrid arts for evoking
demons, and averting the approaching war, hop-
ing by these means to get the victory. In short,
it is impossible to describe the manifold acts of
oppression by which this tyrant of Rome en-
slaved his subjects : so that by this time they
were reduced to the most extreme penury and
want of necessary food, a scarcity such as our
contemporaries do not remember ever before
to have existed at Rome.^
CHAPTER XXXVII.
Defeat of Maxentius' s Annies in Italy.
Constantine, however, filled with compassion
on account of all these miseries, began to arm
himself with all warlike preparation against the
tyranny. Assuming therefore the Supreme God
as his patron, and invoking His Christ to be his
preserver and aid, and setting the victorious
trophy, the salutary symbol, in front of his sol-
diers and body-guard, he marched with his
whole forces, trying to obtain again for the
Romans the freedom they had inherited from
their ancestors.
And whereas, Maxentius, trusting more in his
magic arts than in the affection of his subjects,
dared not even advance outside the city gates,'
but had guarded every place and district and
city subject to his tyranny, with large bodies of
soldiers,^ the emperor, confiding in the help of
God, advanced against the first and second
and third divisions of the tyrant's forces, de-
feated them all with ease at the first assault,^
and made his way into the very interior of Italy.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
Death of Maxentius on the Bridge of the Tiber}
And already he was approaching very near
Rome itself, when, to save him from the neces-
sity of fighting with all the Romans for the ty-
rant's sake, God himself drew the tyrant, as it
were by secret cords, a long way outside the
gates.^ And now those miracles recorded in
* lyoq, Afoh. &c., add " nor anywhere else," but Bag. is un-
doubtedly right in translating simply " ever before." The chapter is
found substantially and in part word for word in the Church His-
tory, 8. 14.
' " Because the soothsayers had foretold that if he went out of it,
he should perish." Lact. De !if. /'.
^ Bag. adds "and numberless ambuscades," following I'aUsius
and y709. The word so rendered is the word for "companies of
soldiers." The rather awkward "multitude of heavy-armed sol-
diers and myriads of companies of soldier" may be rendered as
above, although " larger bodies of soldiers and limitless supplies "
suggested by the translation is perhaps the real meaning. He had
both " men and means."
' At Sigusium, Turin, Brescia, and Verona.
' The Milvian, the present Ponte Mollc.
^ The present Pontc MoUe is nearly 2^ kilometers (say ij miles)
1. 40.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
49:
Holy Writ, which God of old wrought against
the ungodly (discredited by most as fables, yet
believed by the faithful), did he in every deed
confirm to all alike, believers and unbelievers,
who were eye-witnesses of the wonders. For as
once in the days of Moses and the Hebrew na-
tion, who were worshipers of God, " Pharaoh's
chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea,
and his chosen chariot-captains are drowned in
the Red Sea,"^ — so at this time Maxentius, and
the soldiers and guards * with him, " went down
into the depths hke stone," ^ when, in his flight
before the divinely-aided forces of Constantine,
he essayed to cross the river which lay in his
way, over which, making a strong bridge of
boats, he had framed an engine of destruction,
really against himself, but in the hope of en-
snaring thereby him who was beloved by God.
For his God stood by the one to protect him,
while the other, godless," proved to be the
miserable contriver of these secret devices to
his own ruin. So that one might well say, " He
hath made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into
the ditch which he made. Flis mischief shall
return upon his own head, and his violence shall
come down upon his own pate." ^ Thus, in the
present instance, under divine direction, the
machine erected on the bridge, with the ambus-
cade concealed therein, giving way unexpectedly
before the appointed time, the bridge began to
sink, and the boats with the men in them went
bodily to the bottom.^ And first the wretch
himself, then his armed attendants and guards,
even as the sacred oracles had before described,
" sank as lead in the mighty waters." ^ So that
they who thus obtained victory from God might
well, if not in the same words, yet in fact in the
same spirit as the people of his great servant
Moses, sing and speak as they did concerning
the impious tyrant of old : " Let us sing unto the
Lord, for he hath been glorified exceedingly :
the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the
sea. He is become my helper and my shield
unto salvation." And again, "Who is like unto
thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like
thee, glorious in holiness, marvelous in praises,
doing wonders ? " ^'^
from the Porta del Popolo (at the Mons Pincius). The walls at
that time were the ones built by Aurelian. and are substantially the
same as the present ones. This Pons Milvius was first built 100
years b.c, and " some part of the first bridge is supposed to re-
main" (Jenkin, p. 329). Compare Jenkin, art. Bridges, in Enc.
Brit. 4 (1878), 329, for cut and description.
^ Ex. XV. 4. This is identically taken from the Septuagint with
the change of only one word, where Eusebius gains little in ex-
changing " swallowed up in" for plunged or drowned in.
* " Heavy armed and light armed." ^ Ex. xv. 5.
* " Godless," or if di'cu is to be read, " destitute of his aid," as
Bag. Much conjecture has been expended on this reading. Heini-
chen has afleel.
' Ps. vii. 15, 16, Septuagint translation.
8 This matter is discussed in the Prolegomena. ,
" Ex. XV. 10.
*" Ex. XV. I, 2, II, Septuagint version. This whole chapter
with the last paragraph of the preceding are in the Church History,
9.9.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
Cons tan ihie's Entry into Rome.
Having then at this time sung these and such-
Hke praises to God, the Ruler of all and the
Author of victory, after the example of his great
servant Moses, Constantine entered the imperial
city in triumph. And here the whole body of
the senate, and others of rank and distinction
in the city, freed as it were from the restraint of
a prison, along with the whole Roman populace,
their countenances expressive of the gladness of
their hearts, received him with acclamations and
abounding joy ; men, women, and children, with
countless multitudes of servants, greeting him as
deliverer, preserver, and benefactor, with inces-
sant shouts. But he, being possessed of inward
piety toward God, was neither rendered arro-
gant by these plaudits, nor uplifted by the
praises he heard : ^ but, being sensible that he
had received help from God, he immediately
rendered a thanksgiving to him as the Author
of his victory.
CHAPTER XL.
Of the Statue of Constantine ho/ih'ng a Cross,
and its Inscription.
Moreover, by loud proclamation and monu-
mental inscriptions he made known to all men
the salutary symbol, setting up this great trophy
of victory over his enemies in the midst of the
imperial city, and expressly causing it to be
engraven in indelible characters, that the salu-
tary symbol was the safeguard of the Roman
government and of the entire empire. Accord-
ingly, he immediately ordered a lofty spear in
the figure of a cross to be placed beneath the
hand of a statue representing himself, in the
most frequented part of Rome, and the follow-
ing inscription to be engraved on it in the Latin
language : by virtue of this salutary sign,
WHICH IS THE true TEST OF VALOR, I HAVE
preserved and LIBERATED YOUR CITY FROM THE
YOKE OF TYRANNY. I HAVE ALSO SET AT LIB-
ERTY THE ROMAN SENATE AND PEOPLE, AND
RESTORED THEM TO THEIR ANCIENT DISTINCTION
AND SPLENDOR.^
^ Compare Prolegomena under Character, and also for other
accounts of the universal joy under Li/e.
3 Compare the Church History, 9. g.
* So Heinichen. This reading is an emendation from the Ora-
tion of Eusebius, g. 8, supported by one MS. The reading Fpai^i^
would be translated with /'<2^. " many writings."
' Compare the Church History, 9. g.
If it be true, as Cruse says, that in this inscription there are traces
of the Latin original, it gives a strong presumption that Eusebius
was cjuoting a really existing inscription and accordingly that it is
genuine. If so, of course the probability of the vision of the cross
is greatly increased.
494
CONSTANTINE.
[1. 41.
CHAPTER XLI.
Rejoicings tiiroiighoiit the Provinces ; and Con-
stantine's Acts of Grace.
Thus the pious emperor, glorying in the con-
fession of the victorious cross, proclaimed the
Son of God to the Romans with great boldness
of testimony. And the inhabitants of the city,
one and all, senate and people, reviving, as it
were, from the pressure of a bitter and tyran-
nical domination, seemed to enjoy purer rays
of light, and to be born again into a fresh and
new life. All the nations, too, as far as the
limit of the western ocean, being set free from
the calamities wliich liad heretofore beset them,
and gladdened by joyous festivals, ceased not to
praise him as the victorious, the pious, the com-
mon benefactor : all, indeed, with one \-oice and
one mouth, declared that Constantine had ap-
peared by the grace of God as a general blessing
to mankind. The imperial edict also was every-
where ])ublished, whereby those who had been
wrongfully dejjrived of their estates were per-
mitted again to enjoy their own, ■while those who
had unjustly suffered exile were recalled to their
homes. Moreover, he freed from imprisonment,
and from every kind of danger and fear, those
who, by reason of the tyrant's cruelty, had been
subject to these sufferings.
CHAPTER XLH.
The Honors conferred upon Bishops, and the
Building of Cliiirclies.
The emperor also personally inviting the so-
ciety of God's ministers, distinguished them
with the highest possible respect and honor,
showing them favor in deed and word as persons
consecrated to the service of his God. Accord-
ingly, they were admitted to his table, though
mean in their attire and outward appearance ;
yet not so in his estimation, since he thought he
saw not the man as seen by the vulgar eye, but
the (lod in liim. He made them also his com-
panions in travel, believing that He whose ser-
vants they were would thus help him. Besides
this, lie gave from his own private resources
costly benefactions to the churches of God, both
enlarging and heightening the sacred edifices,'
and embellishing the august sanctuaries- of the
church with abundant offerines.
' " Oratories," or chapels.
= Variously rendered, but seems to say that the smaller buildings
were enlarged and the larger ones enriched. The number of build-
ings which Constantme is claimeil to have erected in Rome alone is
pr.KliRious. One meets at every turn in the modern city churches
which were, it is said, founded or remodele.l by him. For interest-
ing monograph which claims to have established the Conslantinian
foijndation ..f m:.„v of ilu-.,-, .,-,; Ciamiim in Prolegomena, under
CHAPTER XLHI.
Constantine' s Liberality to the Poor.
He likewise distributed money largely to those
wlio were in need, and besides these showing
himself philanthropist and benefactor even to
the heathen, who had no claim on him ; ^ and
e\'en for the beggars in the forum, miserable
and shiftless, he provided, not with money only,
or necessary food, but also decent clothing.
P)Ut in the case of those who had once been
prosperous, and had experienced a reverse of
circumstances, his aid was still more lavishly
bestowed. On such persons, in a truly royal
sjjirit, he conferred magnificent benefactions ;
giving grants of land to some, and • honoring
others with various dignities. Orphans of the
unfortunate he cared for as a father, while he
relieved the destitution of widows, and cared
for them with special solicitude. Nay, he even
gave virgins, left unprotected by their jjarents'
death, in marriage to wealthy men with whom
he was personally acquainted. But this he did
after first bestowing on the brides such portions
as it was fitting they should bring to the com-
munion of marriage.'^ In short, as the sun, when
he rises upon the earth, liberally imparts his
rays of light to all, so did Constantine, proceed-
ing at early dawn from the imperial palace, and
rising as it were with the heavenly luminary,
impart the rays of his own beneficence to all
who came into his presence. It was scarcely
possible to be near him without receiving some
benefit, nor did it ever happen that any wlio
had expected to obtain his assistance were dis-
appointed in their hope."
CHAPTER XLIV.
No7a he was present at the Syjiods of Bishops.
Such, then, was liis general character towards
all. But he exercised a peculiar care over the
church of God : and whereas, in the several
provinces there were some who differed from
each other in judgment, he, like some general
bishop constituted by God, convened synods of
his ministers. Nor did he disdain to be present
and sit witli them in their assembly, but bore a
share in their deliberations, ministering to all
that pertained to tlie peace of God. He took
' So usually rendered literally, " to those who came to him from
without," but it might rather mean " foreigners." His generosity
included not only the worthy poor citizens, but foreigners and
beggars.
^ The woril used is the Koivuivia, familiar in the doctrine of the
" communion " or " fellowship " of the saints. It has the notion of
reciprocity and mutual sharing.
■' The popular proverb that at the end of his life he was a spend-
thrift, as given by Victor, represents the other side of this liberality.
Compare Prolegomena, under Character.
I. 4S.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
495
his seat, too, in the midst of them, as an indi-
vidual amongst many, dismissing liis guards and
soldiers, and all whose duty it was to defend his
person ; but protected by the fear of God, and
surrounded by the guardianship of his fiiithful
friends. Those whom he saw inclined to a sound
judgment, and exhibiting a calm and conciliatory
temper, received his higli approbation, for he
evidently delighted in a general harmony of sen-
timent ; while he regarded the unyielcling with
aversion.^
CHAPTER XLV.
His Forbearaijcc witli Unreasonable Men.
Moreover he endured with patience some
who were exasperated against himself, directing
them in mild and gentle terms to control them-
selves, and not be turbulent. And some of
these respected his admonitions, and desisted ;
but as to those who proved incapable of sound
judgment, he left them entirely at the disposal
of God, and never himself desired harsh meas-
ures against any one. Hence it naturally hap-
pened that the disaffected in Africa reached such
a pitch of violence as even to venture on overt
acts of audacity ; ^ some evil spirit, as it seems
probable, being jealous of the present great
prosperity, and impelling these men to atrocious
deeds, that he might excite the emperor's anger
against them. He gained nothing, however, by
this malicious conduct ; for the emperor laughed
at these proceedings, and declared their origin
to be from the evil one ; inasmuch as these were
not the actions of sober persons, but of lunatics
or demoniacs ; who should be pitied rather
than punished ; since to punish madmen is as
great folly as to sympathize with their condition
is supreme philanthropy."
CHAPTER XLVL
Victories over the Barbarians.
Thus the emperor in all his actions honored
God, the Controller of all things, and exercised
an unwearied ^ oversight over His churches. And
God requited him, by subduing all barbarous na-
tions under his feet, so that he was able every-
^ Constantine, like Eusebius himself, would be a distinct " tolera-
tionist" in modern theological controversy. One may imagine that
Eusebius entered into favor with Constantine in this way. It com-
mends itself to our feeling; but after all, the unyielding Athanasius
was a greater man than Eusebius.
1 Compare Prolegomena, under Li'fe and Works.
2 [This passage in the text is defective or corrupt. — Ba^.'\
What is given is substantially the conventional translation of
I'nlcsiiis, Hcinichen, Molzberger, and with some variation, i~OQ
and Ba^. It is founded, however, on a conjectural reading, and
reluctating against this, a suggestion m.ay be hazarded —" an exces-
sive philanthropy for the folly of the insane, even to the point of
sympathy for them."
' Some read " unbroken " or " perfect."
where to raise trophies over his enemies : and
He proclaimed him as conqueror to all mankind,
and made him a terror to his adversaries : not
indeed that this was his natural character, since
he was rather the meekest, and gentlest, and most
benevolent of men.
CHAPTER XLVn.
Deaiii of Maximiu} ivlio liad attempted a Con-
spiracy, and of Others whom Constantine de-
tected by Divine Revelation.
While he was thus engaged, the second of
those who had resigned the throne, being de-
tected in a treasonable conspiracy, suffered a
most ignominious death. He was the first
whose pictures, statues, and all similar marks
of honor and distinction were everywhere de-
stroyed, on the ground of his crimes and im-
piety. After him others also of the same family
were discovered in the act of forming secret
plots against the emperor ; all their intentions
being miraculously revealed by God tlirough
visions to His servant.
For he frequently vouchsafed to him manifes-
tations of himself, the Divine presence appear-
ing to him in a most marvelous manner, and
according to him manifold intimations of future
events. Indeed, it is impossible to express in
words the indescribable wonders of Divine grace
which God was pleased to vouchsafe to His ser-
vant. Surrounded by these, he passed the rest
of his life in security, rejoicing in the affection
of his subjects, rejoicing too because he saw all
beneath his government leading contented lives ;
but above all delighted at the flourishing condi-
tion of the churches of God.
CHAPTER XLVni.
Celebration of Constantine' s Dccennalia.
While he was thus circumstanced, he com-
pleted the tenth year of his reign. On this oc-
casion he ordered the celebration of general
festivals, and offered prayers of thanksgiving to
God, the King of all, as sacrifices without flame
or smoke.^ And from this employment he de-
rived much pleasure : not so from the tidings he
received of the ravages committed in the Eastern
provinces.
1 There is long discussion of whether Maximian or Maximin is
intended. To any one who compares the order of narration in the
Church f/istiiry, g. 9, 11, the discussion will seem idle, though it
is curious that the one most jealous and greedy of power should
have been mistaken for one of the abdicators. It seems as if there
had been some confusion in the mind of Eusebius himself.
' Unburnt offerings, meat offerings.
496
CONSTANTINE.
[1. 49.
CHAPTER XLIX.
H01U Licinius oppressed /he Easf.
For he was informed that in that quarter a
certain savage beast was besetting both the
church of God and the other inhabitants of the
provinces, owing, as it were, to the efforts of
the evil spirit to jiroduce effects quite contrary
to the deeds of the pious emperor : so that the
Roman empire, divided into two parts, seemed
to all men to resemble night and day ; since
darkness overspread the provinces of the East,
while the brightest day illumined the inhabitants
of the other portion. And whereas the latter
were receiving manifold blessings at the hand
of God, the sight of these blessings proved in-
tolerable to that envy which hates all good, as
well as to the tyrant who afflicted the other
division of the empire ; and who, notwithstand-
ing that his government was prospering, and he
had been honored by a marriage connection ^
with so great an emperor as Constantine, yet
cared not to follow the steps of that pious prince,
but strove rather to imitate the evil purposes and
practice of the impious ; and chose to adopt
the course of those whose ignominious end he
had seen with his own eyes, rather than to main-
tain amicable relations with him who was his
superior.-
CHAPTER L.
How Licinius attempted a Conspiracy against
Constantine.
Accordingly he engaged in an implacable
war against his benefactor, altogether regardless
of the laws of friendship, the obligation of oaths,
the ties of kindred, and already existing treaties.
For the most benignant emperor had given him
a proof of sincere affection in bestowing on him
the hand of his sister, thus granting him the
privilege of a place in family relationship and
his own ancient imperial descent, and investing
him also with the rank and dignity of his col-
league in the empire.^ But the other took the
very opposite course, employing himself in
machinations against his superior, and devising
various means to repay his benefactor with inju-
ries. At first, pretending friendship, he did all
things by guile and treachery, expecting thus to
succeed in concealing his designs ; but God
en:ibled his servant to detect the schemes thus
devised in darkness. Being discovered, however.
' I.iriniiis marric.l in ;?i3 Constnnlia, sister of Constantine.
* Thus Rcncrally rulhiwini; the Church Historv (10. 8).
' '•"his renilerinc of lia^. is really n clnss from the Church His-
tory, 10. 8. Compare rendering of McOiffert. Molzher^er renders
" and left him in corn|i!ete possession of the portions of the kingdom
which had fallen to his lot."
in his first attempts, he had recourse to fresh
frauds ; at one time pretending friendship, at
another claiming the protection of solemn trea-
ties. Then suddenly violating every engage-
ment, and again beseeching pardon by embassies,
yet after all shamefully violating his word, he at
last declared open war, and with desperate in-
fatuation resolved thenceforward to carry arms
against God himself, whose worshiper he knew
the emperor to be.
CHAPTER LI.
Intrigues of Licinius against the Bishops, and
his Prohibition of Synods.
And at first he made secret enquiry respecting
the ministers of (lod subject to his dominion,
who had never, indeed, in any respect offended
against his government, in order to bring false
accusations against them. And when he found
no ground of accusation, and had no real ground
of objection against them, he next enacted a law,
to the effect that the bishops should never on
any account hold communication with each other,
nor should any one of them absent himself on a
visit to a neighboring church ; nor, lastly, shoukl
the holding of synods, or councils for the con-
sideration of affairs of common interest,^ be per-
mitted. Now this was clearly a pretext for
displaying his malice against us. For we were
compelled either to violate the law, and thus be
amenable to punishment, or else, by compliance
with its injunctions, to nullify the statutes of the
Church ; inasmuch as it is impossible to bring
important questions to a satisfactory adjustment,
except by means of synods. In other cases also
this God-hater, being determined to act contrary
to the God-loving prince, enacted such things.
For whereas the one assembled the priests of
God in order to honor them, and to promote
peace and unity of judgment ; the other, whose
object it was to destroy everything that was
good, used all his endeavors to destroy the
general harmony.
CHAPTER LII.
Banishment of the Christians, and Confiscation
of their Property.
And whereas Constantine, the friend of God,
had granted to His worshipers freedom of access
to the imperial palaces ; this enemy of God, in
a spirit the very reverse of this, expelled thence
all Christians subject to his authority. He ban-
ished those who had proved themselves his most
' Perhaps " synods or councils and conferences on economic
matters."
1. 56.]
thp: life of constantine.
497
faithful and devoted servants, and compelled
others, on whom he had himself conferred lionor
and distinction as a reward for their former emi-
nent services, to the performance of menial
offices as slaves to others ; and at lengtli, bcinj;
bent on seizing the property of all as a windfall,
for himself, he even threatened with death those
wlio professed the Saviour's name. Moreover,
being himself of a nature hopelessly debased by
sensuality, and degraded by the continual prac-
tice of adultery and other shameless vices, he
assumed his own worthless character as a spec-
imen of human nature generally, and denied
that the virtue of chastity and continence existed
among men.
CHAPTER LIII.
Edict tliaf JVome?i should not meet with the
Afeu in the Churches.
Accordingly he passed a second law, which
enjoined that men should not appear in company
with women in the houses of prayer, and forbade
women to attend the sacred schools of virtue, or
to receive instruction from the bishops, direct-
ing the appointment of women to be teachers
of their own sex. These regulations being re-
ceived with general ridicule, he devised other
means for effecting the ruin of the churches.
He ordered that the usual congregations of the
people should be held in the open country out-
side the gates, alleging that the open air without
the city was far more suitable for a multitude
than the houses of prayer within the walls.
CHAPTER LIV.
That those who refuse to sacrifice arc to be dis-
missed from Military Service, and those in
Prison not to be fed.
Failing, however, to obtain obedience in this
respect also, at length he threw off the mask,
and gave orders that those who held military
commissions in the several cities of the empire
should be deprived of their respective com-
mands, in case of their refusal to offer sacrifices
to the demons. Accordingly the forces of the
authorities in every province suffered the loss of
those who worshiped God ; and he too who
had decreed this order suffered loss, in that he
thus deprived himself of the prayers of pious
men. And why should I still further mention
how he directed that no one should obey the
dictates of common humanity by distributing
food to those who were pining in prisons, or
should even pity the captives who perished with
hunger ; in short, that no one should perform a
virtuous action, and that those whose natural
feelings impelled them to sym])athize with their
fellow-creatures should be prohibited from doing
them a single kindness? Truly this was the most
utterly shameless and scandalous of all laws, and
one wliich surpassed the worst depravity of
human nature : a law which inflicted on those
who showed mercy the same penalties as on
those who were the objects of their compassion,
and visited the exercise of mere humanity with
the severest punishments.^
CHAPTER LV.
The Lawless Conduct a?id Covetoiisness of
Licinius.
Such were the ordinances of Licinius. But
why should I enumerate his innovations respect-
ing marriage, or those concerning the dying,
whereby he presumed to abrogate the ancient
and wisely established laws of the Romans, and
to introduce certain barbarous and cruel institu-
tions in their stead, inventing a thousand pre-
tenses for oppressing his subjects? Hence it
was that he devised a new method of measurinsj
land, by which he reckoned the smallest portion
at more than its actual dimensions, from an
insatiable desire of acquisition. Hence too he
registered the names of country residents who
were now no more, and had long been numbered
with the dead, procuring to himself by this ex-
pedient a shameful gain. His meanness was
unlimited and his rapacity insatiable. So that
when he had filled all his treasuries with gold,
and silver, and boundless wealth, he bitterly
bewailed his poverty, and suffered as it were
the torments of Tantalus. But why should I
mention how many innocent persons he punished
with exile ; how much property he confiscated ;
how many men of noble birth and estimable
character he imprisoned, whose wives he handed
over to be basely insulted by his profligate slaves,
and to how many married women and virgins he
himself offered violence, though already feeling
the infirmities of age? I need not enlarge on
these subjects, since the enormity of his last
actions causes the former to appear trifling and
of little moment.^
CHAPTER LVL
At length he undertakes to raise a Persecution.
For the final efforts of his fury appeared in
his open hostility to the churches, and he di-
rected his attacks against the bishops themselves,
■■ Compare Church History, 10. g.
1 Compare Church History, 10. 9, and the same for the follow-
ing chapters, in parts or whole.
VOL. I.
Kk
49S
whom he regarded as his worst adversaries, bear-
ing special enmity to those men whom the great
and pious emperor treated as his friends. Ac-
cordingly he spent on us the utmost of his fury,
and, being transported beyond the bounds of
reason, he paused not to reflect on the example
of those who had persecuted the Christians
before him, nor of those whom he himself had
been raised up to punish and destroy for their
impious deeds : nor did he heed the facts of
which he had been himself a witness, though he
had seen with his own eyes the chief originator
of these our calamities (whoever he was), smit-
ten by the stroke of the Divine scourge.
CHAPTER LVII.
That Maxiiiiiaii^ broih^Jit Low by a Fistulous
Ulcer with J Forms, issued an Edict in Favor
of the Christians.
For whereas this man had commenced the
attack on the churches, and had been the first
to pollute his soul with the blood of just and
goclly men, a judgment from Cod overtook him,
which at first affected his body, but eventually
extended itself to his soul. For suddenly an
abscess appeared in the secret parts of his ])er-
son, followed by a deei:)ly seated fistulous ulcer ;
and these diseases fastened with incurable viru-
lence on the intestines, which swarmed with a
vast multitude of worms, and emitted a pesti-
lential odor. Besides, his -entire person had
become loaded, through gluttonous excess, with
an enormous cjuantity of fat, and this, being now
in a putrescent state, is said to have presented
to all who approached him an intolerable and
dreadful spectacle. Having, therefore, to strug-
gle against such sufferings, at length, thougli
late, he came to a realization of his past crimes
against the Church ; and, confessing his sins
before Cod, he put a stop to the persecution of
the Christians, and hastened to issue imperial
edicts and rescripts for the rebuilding of their
churches, at the same time enjoining them to
perform their customary worship, and to offer
up prayers on his behalf-
CIIAITER LVIII.
Tliat Maximin, who had persecuted the Chris-
tians, was covipflled to jh\ and conceal him-
self in the Disguise of a Slave.
Such was the punishment which he underwent
CONSTANTINE.
[I. 56.
> ((,alcnu» M.-ixiinuin. 1 he .Icscription of his illness .and death
in the nru chapter « repealed from the author's Ecchsiastua!
/tut.'ry, \\V. 8. c. |fi. -- tiaK.\ Compare translation of McGiffcrt,
|>. :iiH. .111,1 note; al»o Latlnnliiis, /',■ ^f, /'. p. ^j '
' < •iiiparr r<li( 1 in ilir 1 h.r. h Hiitory, 8. 17!
who had commenced the persecution. He,^
however, of whom we are now speaking, who had
been a witness of these things, and known them
by his own actual experience, all at once ban-
ished the remembrance of them from his mind,
and reflected neither on the punishment of the
first, nor the divine judgment which had been
executed on the second persecutor." The latter
had indeed endeavored to outstrip his predeces-
sor in the career of crime, and prided himself
on the invention of new tortures for us. Fire
nor sword, nor piercing with nails, nor yet wild
beasts or the depths of the sea sufficed him. In
addition to all these, he discovered a new mode
of punishment, and issued an edict directing
that their eyesight should be destroyed. So
that numbers, not of men only, but of women
and children, after being deprived of the sight
of their eyes, and the use of the joints of their
feet, by mutilation or cauterization, were con-
signed in this condition to the painful labor of
the mines. Hence it was that this tyrant also
was overtaken not long after by the righteous
judgment of God, at a time when, confiding in
the aid of the demons whom he worshiped as
gods, and relying on the countless multitudes
of his troops, he had ventured to engage in
battle. For, feeling himself on that occasion
destitute of all hope in Cjod, he threw from him
the imperial dress which so ill became him, hid
himself with unmanly timidity in the crowd
around him, and sought safety in flight."
He afterwards lurked about the fields and
villages in the habit of a slave, hoping he should
thus be effectually concealed. He had not,
however, eluded the mighty and all-searching
eye of Cod : for even while he was expecting
to pass the residue of his days in security, he
fell prostrate, smitten by God's fiery dart, and
his whole body consumed by the stroke of
Divine vengeance ; so that all trace of the orig-
inal lineaments of his person was lost, and noth-
ing remained to him but dry bones and a
skeleton-like appearance.
CHAPTER FIX.
That Afaxintin, blinded by Disease, issued an
Edict in Favor of the Christians.
And still the stroke of God continued heavy
u])on him, so that his eyes protruded and fell
from their sockets, leaving him quite blind : and
thus he suffered, by a most righteous retribution,
the very same punishment which he had been
' Liciniiis.
' I Maximin, ruler of the Eastern provinces of the empire.—
••He was defeated by Licinius, who had much inferior forces-
Compare Prolegomena, under Li/r, and references.
I- 59-]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
499
the first to devise for the martyrs of God. At
length, however, surviving even these sufferings,
he too implored pardon of the God of the Chris-
tians, ami confessed his im])ious fighting against
God : he too recanted, as the former persecutor
had done ; and by laws and ordinances explicitly
acknowledged his error in worshii)ing those
whom he had accounted gods, declaring that he
now knew, by positive experience, that the God
of the Christians was the only true God. These
were facts which Licinius had not merely re-
ceived on the testimony of others, but of which
he had himself had personal knowledge : and
yet, as though his understanding had been ob-
scured by some dark cloud of error, persisted
in the same evil course.
Kk
BOOK II.
CHAPTER I.
Scarf Pi'iscciition by Liciiiii/s, who causes Some
Bishops to he put to Death at Amasia of
Pontus.
In this manner, he of whom we have spoken
continued to rush headlong towards that de-
struction which awaits the enemies of God ; and
once more, with a fatal emulation of their ex-
ample whose ruin he had himself witnessed as
the conse<iuence of their impious conduct, he
re-kindled the persecution of the Christians,
like a long-extinguished fire, and fanned the
unhallowed flame to a fiercer height than any
who had gone before him.
At first, indeed, though breathing fury and
threatenings against God, like some savage beast
of prey, or some crooked and wriggling serpent,
he dared not, from fear of Constantine, openly
level his attacks against the churches of God
subject to his dominion ; but dissembled the
virulence of his malice, and endeavored by
secret and limited measures to compass the
death of the bishops, the most eminent of whom
he found means to remove, through charges laid
against them by the governors of the several
provinces. And the manner in which they
suflered had in it something strange, and hither-
to unheard of. At all events, the barbarities
peri)etrated at .'\masia of Pontus surpassed every
known excess of cruelty.
CHAPTER n.
Demolition of Churches, aud Butchery of the
Bishops.
For in that city some of the churches, for the
second time since the commencement of the
persecutions, were leveled with the ground, and
others were closed by the governors of the sev-
eral districts, in order to prevent any who fre-
quented them from assembling together, or
rendering due worship to God. For he by
whose orders these outrages were committed
was too conscious of his own crimes to expect
that these services were performed with any
view to his benefit, and was convinced that all
we did, and all our endeavors to obtain the
favor of God, were on Constantine's behalf.
These servile governors^ then, feeling assured
that such a course would be pleasing to the
imi:)ious tyrant, subjected the most distinguished
prelates of the churches to capital punishment.
Accordingly, men who had been guilty of no
crime were led away, without cause- punished
like murderers : and some suffered a new kind
of death, having their bodies cut piecemeal :
and, after this cruel punishment, more horrible
than any named in tragedy, being cast, as a food
to fishes, into the depths of the sea. The result
of these horrors was again, as before, the flight
of pious men, and once more the fields and
deserts received the worshipers of God. The
tyrant, having thus far succeeded in his object,
he farther determined to raise a general perse-
cution of the Christians : " and he would have
accomplished his purpose, nor could anything
have hindered him from carrying his resolution
into effect, had not he who defends his own an-
ticipated the coming evil, and by his special
guidance conducted his ser\^ant Constantine to
this part of the empire, causing him to shine
forth as a brilliant light in the midst of the dark-
ness and gloomy night.
CHAPTER HI.
Ho7V Cotistantine was stirred in Behalf of the
Christians thus in Danger of Persecution.
He, perceiving the evils of which he had heard
to be no longer tolerable, took wise counsel, and
tempering the natural clemency of his character
with a certain measure of severity, hastened to
succor those who were thus grievously oppressed.
For he judged that it would righdy be deemed
a pious and holy task to secure, by the removal
of an individual, the safety of the greater part
of the human race. He judged too, that if he
listened to the dictates of clemency only, and
bestowed his i)ity on one utterly unworthy of it,
this would, on the one hand, confer no real
benefit on a man whom nothing would induce
to abandon his evil practices, and whose fiiry
against his subjects would only be likely to in-
1 I.iternlly, " the flatterers and time-servers about him."
' Or " openly."
■"* [The reaihng in the text is rouTwr, but should be n-arrwr, of
rt// Christians, as it is in llist. Eccles. Bk. lo, c. 8, from which this
passage is almost verbally taken, — liag.\
n-5-]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
501
crease ; * while, on the other hand, those who
suffered from his opjiression would thus be for-
ever deprived of all hope of deliverance.
Influenced by these reflections, the emperor
resolved without farther delay to extend a pro-
tecting hand to those who had follen into such
an extremity of distress. He accordingly made
the usual warlike i)reparations, and assembled
his whole forces, both of horse and foot. But
before them all was carried the standard which
1 liave before described, as the symbol of his full
confidence in God.
CHAPTER IV.
That Constantinc prepared lihnscif for the War
by Prayer : Licinius by the Practice of Divi-
nation.
He took with him also the priests of God,
feeling well assured that now, if ever, he stood
in need of the efficacy of prayer, and thinking
it right that they should constantly be near and
about his person, as most trusty guardians of the
soul.
Now, as soon as the tyrant understood that
Constantine's victories over his enemies were
secured to him by no other means than the co-
o]Deration of God, and that the persons above
alluded to were continually with him and about
his person ; and besides this, that the symbol of
the salutary passion preceded both the emperor
himself and his whole army ; he regarded these
precautions with ridicule (as might be expected),
at the same time mocking and reviling the em-
peror with blasphemous words.
On the other hand, he gathered round him-
self Egyptian diviners and soothsayers, with sor-
cerers and enchanters, and the priests and proph-
ets of those whom he imagined to be gods. He
then, after offering the sacrifices which he thought
the occasion demanded, enquired how far he
might reckon on a successful termination of the
war. They replied with one voice, that he would
unquestionably be victorious over his enemies,
and triumphant in the war : and the oracles
everywhere held out to him the same prospect
in copious and elegant verses. The soothsayers
certified him of favorable omens from the flight
of birds ; the priests ^ declared the same to be
indicated by the motion of the entrails of their
victims. Elevated, therefore, by these fallacious
assurances, he boldly advanced at the head of
his army, and prepared for battle.
1 This seems to intend some exoneration of Constantine, explain-
ing why he was what the heathen called "faithless" towards Li-
cinius.
' Soothsayers and priests. These were technically " augurs "
and " haruspices." Compare for their functions the articles Augur,
Divinaiio, and Haruspices, in Smith, Diet. Gr. and Ron. Ant.
CHAPTER V.
What Licinius, ivliile sacrificing^ in a Gror'c, saiJ
concernim^ Idols, and concerning Christ.
And when he was now ready to engage, he
desired the most ap])roved of his body-guard '
and his most vahied friends to meet him in one
of the places which they consider sacred. It
was a well-watered and shady grove, and in it
were several marble statues of those whom he
accounted to be gods. After lighting tapers
and performing the usual sacrifices in honor of
these, he is said to have delivered the following
speech :
" Friends and fellow-soldiers ! These are our
country's gods, and these we honor with a wor-
ship derived from our remotest ancestors. But
he who leads the army now opposed to us has
proved false to the religion of his forefathers,
and adopted atheistic sentiments, honoring in
his infatuation some strange and unheard-of
Deity, with whose despicable standard he now
disgraces his army, and confiding in whose aid
he has taken up arms, and is now advancing, not
so much against us as against those very gods
whom he has forsaken. However, the present
occasion shall prove which of us is mistaken in
his judgment, and shall decide between our gods
and those whom our adversaries profess to honor.
For either it will declare the victory to be ours,
and so most justly evince that our gods are the
true saviours and helpers ; or else, if this God of
Constantine's, who comes we know not whence,
shall prove superior to our deities (who are many,
and in point of numbers, at least, have the advan-
tage), let no one henceforth doubt which god
he ought to worship, but attach himself at once
to the superior power, and ascribe to him the
honors of the victory. Suppose, then, this strange
God, whom we now regard with ridicule, should
really prove victorious ; then indeed we must
acknowledge and give him honor, and so bid a
long farewell to those for whom we light our ta-
pers in vain. But if our own gods triumph (as
they undoubtedly will), then, as soon as we have
secured the present victory, let us prosecute the
war without delay against these despisers of the
gods."
Such were the words he addressed to those
then present, as reported not long after to the
writer of this history by some who heard them
spoken.- And as soon as he had concluded his
speech, he gave orders to his forces to commence
the attack.
' Literally, " shield-bearers," but here relates to a chosen body
of guards, as in the Macedonian army. Compare Liddell and Scott,
L.CX. s.v. i'7raa'7Tt<rT>i?.
- The whole passage seems altogether too appropriate to receive
ready credence; but it is worth noting here how Eusebius " quotes
his authors," and seems to give the thing for what it is worth, keep-
ing perhaps the same modicum of reservation for the hearers' rela-
502
CONST ANTINE.
[II. 6.
CHAPTER VI.
An Apparition seen in the Cities subject to Lici-
nius, as of Constantine's Troops passing
through them.
While these things were taking place a su-
pernatural appearance is said to have been
observed in the cities subject to the tyrant's
rule. Different detachments of Constantine's
army seemed to present themselves to the view,
marching at noonday through these cities, as
though they had obtained the victory. In real-
ity, not a single soldier was anywhere present at
the time, and yet this appearance was seen
through the agency of a divine and superior
l)ower, and foreshadowed what was shortly com-
ing to pass. For as soon as the armies were
ready to engage, he who had broken through
the ties of friendly alliance ' was the first to
commence the battle ; on which Constantine,
calling on the name of " God the Supreme Sav-
iour," and giving this as the watchword to his sol-
diers, overcame him in this first conflict : and not
long after in a second battle he gained a still
more important and decisive victory, the salu-
tary trophy preceding the ranks of his army.
CHAPTER VII.
That Victory everyivlicre folhnved the Presence
of the Standard of the Cross in Battle.
Indf.f.I), wherever this appeared, the enemy
soon fled before his victorious troops. And the
emperor perceiving this, whenever he saw any
part of his forces hard pressed, gave orders that
the salutary trophy should be moved in that
direction, like some triumphant charm ' against
disasters : at which the combatants were divinely
inspired, as it were, with fresh strength and
courage, and immediate victory was the result.
CHAPTER VIII.
That Fifty Men toere selected to carry the Cross.
Accordingly, he selected those of his body-
guard who were most distinguished for personal
strength, valor, and piety, and intrusted them
with the sole care and defense of the standard.
There were thus no less than fifty men whose
only duty was to surroimd and vigilantly defend
live imaKin.ntion and memory, when relating after the events that
Ine morfcrn reader docs. '
' (I.i. iniiis was susficcle.l of having secretly countenanced Bas-
sianiis fwho had married ConMantinc's sister Anasiasia, and received
the rank nf Ca:*ar) in a lreas.inal.lc conspiracy. Vide tJibbon De-
clntf a,,d Fall, chap. 14. — An^.] Compare Prolegomena, ilnder
' Or " remedy"; i.e. that which keeps off harm.
the standard, which they carried each in turn
on their shoulders. These circumstances were
related to the writer of this narrative by the
emperor himself in his leisure moments, long
after the occurrence of the events : and he
added another incident well worthy of being
recorded.
CHAPTER IX.
That One of the Cross-bearers, who fled from
his Post, icas slain : while Another, who faith-
fully stood his Ground, tuas preserved.
For he said that once, during the very heat
of an engagement, a sudden tumult and panic
attacked his army, which threw the soldier who
then bore the standard into an agony of fear, so
that he handed it over to another, in order to
secure his own escape from the battle. As
soon, however, as his comrade had received it,
and he had withdrawn, and resigned all charge
of the standard, he was struck in the belly by a
dart, which took his life. Thus he paid the
penalty of his cowardice and unfaithfulness, and
lay dead on the spot : but the other, who had
taken his place as the bearer of the salutary
standard, found it to be the safeguard of his
life. For though he was assailed by a continual
shower of darts, the bearer remained unhurt,
the staff of the standard receiving every weapon.
It was indeed a truly marvelous circumstance,
that the enemies' darts all fell within and re-
mained in the slender circumference of this
spear, and thus saved the standard-bearer from
death ; so that none of those engaged in this
service ever received a wound.
This story is none of mine, but for this,^ too,
I am indebted to the emperor's own authority,
who related it in my hearing along with other
matters. And now, having thus through the
power of God secured these first victories, he
put his forces in motion and continued his
onward march.
CHAPTER X.
Various Battles, and Constantine'' s Victories.
The van, however, of the enemy, unable to
resist the emperor's first assault, threw down
their arms, and i)rostratcd themselves at his
feet. All these he spared, rejoicing to save
human life. But there were others who still
continued in arms, and engaged in battle. These
the emperor endeavored to conciliate by friendly
' f naAti', •' again," alluding to the former miracle, Ihe vision of
the cross, which Euscbius does not venture to attest himself, but
rcl.ites on the word and oath of Constantine. Vide Bk. 1, cc. 28
and 30. — Iiag.'\
II. 14.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
503
overtures, but when these were not accepted he
ordered his army to commence the attack. On
this they immediately turned and betook them-
selves to flight ; and some were overtaken and
slain according to the laws of war, while others
fell on each other in the confusion of their flight,
and perished by the swords of their comrades.
CHAPTER XL
Flight, and Magic Arts of Licinius.
Lv these circumstances their commander,
finding himself bereft of the aid of his followers/
having lost his lately numerous array, both of
regular and allied forces, having proved, too, by
experience, how vain his confidence had been
in those whom he thought to be gods, ignomini-
ously took to flight, by which indeed he effected
his escape, and secured his personal safety, for the
pious emperor had forbidden his soldiers to fol-
low him too closely,' and thus allowed him an
opportunity for escape. And this he did in the
hope that he might hereafter, on conviction of
the desperate state of his affairs, be induced to
abandon his insane and presumptuous ambition,
and return to sounder reason. So Constantine,
in his excessive humanity, thought and was
willing patiently to bear past injuries, and ex-
tend his forgiveness to one who so ill deserved
it ; but Licinius, far from renouncing his evil
practices, still added crime to crime, and ven-
tured on more daring atrocities than ever. Nay,
once more tampering with the detestable arts of
magic, he again was presumptuous : so that it
might well be said of him, as it was of the
Egyptian tyrant of old, that God had hardened
his heart.^
CHAPTER XH.
Ho%u Constantine, after praying in his Taber-
nacle, obtained the Victory.
But while Licinius, giving himself up to these
impieties, rushed blindly towards the gulf of
destruction, the emperor on the other hand,
when he saw that he must meet his enemies in
a second battle, devoted the intervening time to
his Saviour. He pitched the tabernacle of the
cross ^ outside and at a distance from his camp,
and there passed his time in a pure and holy
manner, offering up prayers to God ; following
thus the example of his ancient prophet, of
1 " Slaves," a word which has frequently been used by Eusebius
in this literal sense.
2 This idiom here is nearly the English, " followed on the heels "
of any one. ' Ex. ix. 12.
' [This tabernacle, which Constantine always carried with him
in his military expeditions, is described by Sozomen, Bk, i, c. 8; see
English translation. — Bc.g.'\
whom the sacred oracles testify, that he pitched
the tabernacle without the camp.- Me was
attentled only by a few, whose faith and pious
devotion he highly esteemed. And this custom
he continued to observe whenever he meditated
an engagement with the enemy. I'or he was
deliberate in his measures, the better to insure
safety, and desired in everything to be directed
by divine counsel. And making earnest sup-
plications to God, he was always honored after
a little with a manifestation of his presence.
And then, as if moved by a divine impulse, he
would rush from the tabernacle, and suddenly
give orders to his army to move at once without
delay, and on the instant to draw their swords.
On this they would immediately commence the
attack, fight vigorously, so as with incredible
celerity to secure the victory, and raise trophies
of victory over their enemies.
CHAPTER XHL
His Humane Treatment of Prisoners.
Thus the emperor and his army had long
been accustomed to act, whenever there was a
prospect of an engagement ; for his God was
ever present to his thoughts, and he desired to
do everything according to his will, and con-
scientiously to avoid any wanton sacrifice of
human life. He was anxious thus for the preser-
vation not only of his own subjects, but even of
his enemies. Accordingly he directed his vic-
torious troops to spare the lives of their pris-
oners, admonishing them, as human beings, not
to forget the claims of their common nature.
And whenever he saw the passions of his sol-
diery excited beyond control, he repressed their
fury by a largess of money, rewarding every
man who saved the life of an enemy with a
certain weight of gold. And the emperor's own
sagacity led him to discover this inducement to
spare human life, so that great numbers even of
the barbarians were thus saved, and owed their
lives to the emperor's gold.
CHAPTER XIV.
A Farther Mention of his Prayers in the
T^abernacle.
Now these, and a thousand such acts as these,
were familiarly and habitually done by the em-
peror. And on the present occasion he retired,
as his custom was before battle, to the privacy
of his tabernacle, and there employed his time
in prayer to God. Meanwhile he strictly ab-
- [Alluding to Ex. xxxiii. 7, &c. — Bag.^
504
CONSTANTINE.
[11. 14.
stained from anything like ease, or luxurious
living, and disciplined himself by fasting and
bodity mortification, imploring the favor of God
by supplication and prayer, that he might ob-
tain his concurrence and aid, and be ready to
execute whatever he might be pleased to sug-
gest to his thoughts. In short, he exercised a
vigilant care over all alike, and interceded with
Cod as much for the safety of his enemies as
for that of his own subjects.
CHAPTER XV.
Treacherous Friendship, and Idolatrous Prac-
tices of Licinius.
And inasmuch as he who had lately fled
before him now dissembled his real sentiments,
and again petitioned for a renewal of friendship
and alliance, the emperor thought fit, on cer-
tain conditions, to grant his request,^ in the
hope that such a measure might be expedient,
and generally advantageous to the community.
Licinius, however, while he pretended a ready
submission to the terms prescribed, and attested
his sincerity by oaths, at this very time was
secretly engaged in collecting a military force,
and again meditated war and strife, inviting even
the barbarians to join his standard,- and he be-
gan also to look about him for other gods, hav-
ing been deceived by those in whom he had
hitherto trusted. And, without bestowing a
thought on what he had himself publicly spoken
on the subject of false deities, or choosing to
acknowledge that God who had fought on the
side of Constantine, he made himself ridiculous
by seeking for a multitude of new gods.
CHAPTER XVI.
How Licinius counseled his Soldiers not to attack
the Standard of the Cross.
Having now learned by experience the Divine
and mysterious power which resided in the salu-
' [" He consented to leave his rival, or, as he ajjain styled Li-
cinius, his friend and brother, in the possession of 'I'hrace, Asia
Minor, Syria, and KRyP'' but the provinces of Pannonia, Dalmatia,
Kai.ia, Niaccdonia, and (Jrecce, were yielded to the Western empire,
and the dominions of Constantine now extended from the confines of
Calcilonia to the extremity of Teloponnesus." — Gibbon, Decline
and l-'aU, chap. XIV. — Bag. ]
' [Gibljon (chap. XIV.) says that the reconciliation of Constan-
tine and l.icinius maintained, abcr.ic eight years, the tranquillity of
the Roman world. If this Ix: true, it may be regarded as one proof
lh.it our author's work is rather to be considered as a Rcncral sketch
'' " iline's life anil character than as a minutely correct his-
> inicnt. — Artv. I 'I'hcrc is cither a stranRc lack of pcr-
•1 '•' this .-iccount. or else Kuscbius omits all account of the
first wars wilh l.icinius (314) which resulted in the division of ter-
ritory incniioned in the .above note. 'I'liis latter view is plausible
on comparison with the account in the Church ffislory. in this
view the conditions referred to .above relate to the terms on which
l.iiinius w.is spared on Constantia's reiiucst, and wh.il follows is
the rkpl.ination of the alleged oath-breaking of Constantine in put-
ling Licinius to death.
tary trophy, by means of which Constantine 's
army had become habituated to victory, he ad-
monished his soldiers never to direct their
attack against this standard, nor even incau-
tiously to allow their eyes to rest upon it ; assur-
ing them that it possessed a terrible power, and
was especially hostile to him ; so that they
would do well carefully to avoid any collision
with it. And now, having given these direc-
tions, he prepared for a decisive conflict with
him whose humanity prompted him still to hesi-
tate, and to postpone the fate which he foresaw
awaited his adversary. The enemy, however,
confident in the aid of a multitude of gods,
advanced to the attack with a powerful array of
military force, preceded by certain images of
the dead, and lifeless statues, as their defense.
On the other side, the emperor, secure in the
armor of godliness, opposed to the numbers of
the enemy the salutary and life-giving sign, as
at once a terror to the foe, and a protection
from every harm. And for a while he paused,
and preserved at first the attitude of forbearance,
from respect to the treaty of peace to which he
had given his sanction, that he might not be the
first to commence the contest.
CHAPTER XVII.
Constantine'' s Victory.
But as soon as he perceived that his adver-
saries persisted in their resolution, and were
already drawing their swords, he gave free scope
to his indignation, and by a single charge ' over-
threw in a moment the entire body of the
enemy, thus triumphing at once over them and
their gods.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Death of Licinius, and Celebration of the Event.
Hk then proceeded to deal witli this adver-
sary of God and his followers according to the
laws of war, and consign them to fitting punish-
ment. Accordingly the tyrant himself, and they
whose counsels had supported hini in his im-
piety, were together subjected to the just pun-
ishment of death. After this, those who had so
lately been deceived by their vain confidence
in false deities, acknowledged with unfeigned
sincerity the God of Constantine, and openly
]irofessed their belief in him as the true and
only God.
' " With one shout and charge." This does not agree with the
account of the final struggle by which Licinius came into Conslan-
tine's oower, as generally given, and lends some probability to the
view tliat after he had been captured he again revolted.
11.21.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
505
CHAPTr-:R XIX.
Rfjoicifigs and Festivities.
And now, the impious being thus removed,
the sun once more shone brightly after the
gloomy cloud of tyrannic power. luich sepa-
rate portion of the Roman dominion became
blended with the rest ; the Eastern nations
united with those of the West, and the whole
body of the Roman empire was graced as it
were by its head in the person of a single and
supreme ruler, whose sole authority pervaded
the whole. Now too the bright rays of the
light of godliness gladdened the days of those
who had heretofore been sitting in darkness and
the shadow of death. Past sorrows were no
more remembered, for all united in celebrating
the praises of the victorious prince, and avowed
their recognition of his preserver as the only
true God. Thus he whose character shone with
all the virtues of piety, the emperor Victor, for
he had himself adopted this name as a most
fitting appellation to express the victory which
God had granted him over all who hated or
opposed him,^ assumed the dominion of the
East, and thus singly governed the Roman em-
pire, re-united, as in former times, under one
head. Thus, as he was the first to proclaim to
all the sole sovereignty of God, so he himself,
as sole sovereign of the Roman world, extended
his authority over the whole human race. Every
apprehension of those evils under the pressure
of which all had suffered was now removed ;
men whose heads had drooped in sorrow now
regarded each other with smiling countenances,
and looks expressive of their inward joy. ^\'ith
processions and hymns of praise they first of all,
as they were told, ascribed the supreme sover-
eignty to God, as in truth the King of kings ;
and then with continued acclamations rendered
honor to the victorious emperor, and the Ctesars,
his most discreet and pious sons. The former
afflictions were forgotten, and all past impieties
forgiven : while with the enjoyment of present
happiness was mingled the expectation of con-
tinued blessings in the future.
CHAPTER XX.
Constantine' s Enactments in Favor of the Con-
fessors.
Moreover, the emperor's edicts, permeated
with his humane spirit, were published among
us also, as they had been among the inhabitants
* Like very many other things which Eusebius tells of Constan-
tine, that which was entirely customary with other emperors as well
as Constantine has the appearance of being peculiar to him. Victor
is a common title of various emperors.
of the other division of the empire ; and his
laws, which breathed a spirit of piety toward
God, gave promise of manifold blessings, since
they secured many advantages to his provincial
subjects in every nation, and at the same time
prescribed measures suited to the exigencies of
the churches of God. For first of all they re-
called those who, in consequence of their refiisal
to join in idol worship, had been driven to exile,
or ejected from their homes by the governors of
their respective provinces. In the next place,
they relieved from their burdens those who for
the same reason had been adjudged to serve in
the civil courts, and ordained restitution to be
made to any who had been deprived of prop-
erty. They too, who in the time of trial had
signalized themselves by fortitude of soul in the
cause of God, and had therefore been con-
demned to the painful labor of the mines, or
consigned to the solitude of islands, or com-
pelled to toil in the public works, all received
an immediate release from these burdens ; while
others, whose rehgious constancy had cost them
the forfeiture of their military rank, were vindi-
cated by the emperor's generosity from this dis-
honor : for he granted them the alternative either
of resuming their rank, and enjoying their former
privileges, or, in the event of their preferring a
more settled life, of perpetual exemption from
all service. Lastly, all who had been compelled
by way of disgrace and insult to serve in the
employments of women,^ he likewise freed with
the rest.
CHAPTER XXL
His Laws concerning Martyrs, and concerning
Ecclesiastical Property.
Such were the benefits secured by the em-
peror's written mandates to the persons of those
who had thus suffered for the faith, and his laws
made ample provision for their property also.
With regard to those holy martyrs of God who
had laid down their lives in the confession of His
name, he directed that their estates should be
enjoyed by their nearest kindred ; and, in de-
fault of any of these, that the right of inherit-
ance should be vested in the churches. Farther,
whatever property had been consigned to other
parties from the treasury, whether in the way of
sale or gift, together with that retained in the
treasury itself, the generous mandate of the em-
peror directed should be restored to the original
owners. Such benefits did his bounty, thus
widely diffused, confer on the Church of God.
' [In the gynaecia (yufatKeio), or places where women, and sub-
sequently slaves of both sexes, were employed in spinning and
weaving for the emperor. Vide infra, c\i. -^a,. — Bag.'\ See note
on ch. 34.
5o6
CONSTANTINE.
[II. 22.
CHAPTER XXII.
Hoiv he won the Favor of the People.
But his munificence bestowed still further and
more numerous favors on the heathen peoples
and the other nations of his empire. So that
the inhabitants of our [Eastern] regions, who
had heard of the i)rivilegcs experienced in the
opposite portion of the empire, and had blessed
the fortunate recipients of them, and longed for
the enjoyment of a similar lot for themselves,
now with one consent proclaimed their own
hapjiincss, when they saw themselves in posses-
sion of all these blessings ; and confessed that
the appearance of such a monarch to the human
race was indeed a marvelous event, and such
as the world's history had never yet recorded.
Such were their sentiments.
CHAPTER XXIII.
That he dechircd God to he the Author of his
Prosperity : and eoncertiing his Rescripts .
And now that, through the powerful aid of
God his Saviour, all nations owned their subjec-
tion to the emperor's authority, he openly i)ro-
claimed to all the name of Him to whose bounty
he owed all his blessings, and declared that He,
and not himself, was the author of his past victo-
ries. This declaration, written both in the Latin
and Greek languages, he caused to be transmitted
through every province of the empire. Now the
excellence of his style of expression^ may be
known from a i)erusal of his letters themselves,
which were two in number ; one addressed to
the churches of God ; the other to the heathen
population in the several cities of the empire.
The latter of these I think it well to insert here,
as connected with my present subject, in order
on the one hand that a copy of this document
may be recorded as matter of history, and thus
preserved to posterity, and on the other that it
may serve to confirm the truth of my present
narrative. It is taken from an authentic copy
of the imperial statute in my own possession ;
and the signature in the em])eror's own hand-
writing attaches as it were the impress of truth
to the statement I have made.
CHAITER XXIV.
Law of Constantitic respecting Piety toiuards
God, and the Christian Religion}
" VlCK )k CONSTANIINUS, MaXIMUS AUGUSTUS,
to the inhabitants of the province of Palestine.
' " The v.iluc of our narrative " is ilu: rendering of Molzbcrgcr.
" l"he jiowcrfulnc^s of liis laiiKiiaRe." — ly^-
' Compare Epitome in Sozuiiicm, i. 8.
'' To all who entertain just and sound senti-
ments respecting the character of the Supreme
Being, it has long been most clearly evident,
and beyond the possibility of doubt, how vast
a difference there has ever been between those
who maintain a careful observance of the hal-
lowed duties of the Christian religion, and those
who treat this religion with hostility or contempt.
But at this present time, we may see by still
more manifest proofs, and still more decisive
instances, both how unreasonable it were to
question this truth, and how mighty is the
power of the Supreme God : since it appears
that they who faithfully observe His holy laws,
and shrink from the transgression of His com-
mandments, are rewarded with abundant bless-
ings, and are endued with well-grounded hope
as well as ample power for the accomplishment
of their undertakings. On the other hand, they
who have cherished impious sentiments have
experienced results corresponding to their evil
choice. For how is it to be expected that any
blessing would be obtained by one who neither
desired to acknowledge nor duly to worship that
God who is the source of all blessing? Indeed,
facts themselves are a confirmation of what 1
say.
CHAPTER XXV.
An Illustration from Ancient Times.
" For certainly any one who will mentally
retrace the course of events from the earliest
period down to the present time, and will re-
fiect on what has occurred in past ages, will
find that all who have made justice and probity
the basis of their conduct, have not only carried
their undertakings to a successful issue, but have
gathered, as it were, a store of sweet fruit as
the produce of this pleasant root. Again, who-
ever observes the career of those who have been
bold in the practice of oppression or injustice ;
who have either directed their senseless fury
against God himself, or have conceived no
kindly feelings towards their fellow-men, but
have dared to afflict them with exile, disgrace,
confiscation, massacre, or other miseries of the
like kind, and all this without any sense of com-
punction, or wish to direct thoughts to a better
course, will find that such men have received
a recompense proportioned to their crimes.
And these are results which might naturally and
reasonably be expected to ensue.^
' There is a curious unanimity of effort on the part of theoloyiral
amateurs, ancient and modern, to prove that those upon whom the
tower in Siloam fell were guiltier than otlicrs. This was the sjiirit
of I.actantius and it is not to be wondered at that Constantinc should
adopt such a peculiarly self-satisfying doctrine.
II. 29.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
507
CHAPTER XXVI.
Of Persecuted and Persecutors.
" For whoever have addressed themselves
with integrity of i)urpt)se to any course of ac-
tion, keeping the fear of (lod continually before
their tlioughts, and preserving an unwavering
faith in him, without allowing present fears or
dangers to outweigh their hope of future bless-
ings— such persons, though for a season they
may have experienced painful trials, have borne
their afflictions lightly, being supported by the
l)elief of greater rewards in store for them ; and
their character has acquired a brighter luster in
proportion to the severity of their past suffer-
ings. With regard, on the other hand, to those
who have either dishonorably slighted the princi-
ples of justice, or refused to acknowledge the
Supreme God themselves, and yet have dared
to subject others who have faithfully maintained
his worship to the most cruel insults and pun-
ishments ; who have failed equally to recognize
their own wretchedness in opj^ressing others on
such grounds, and the happiness and blessing
of those who preserved their devotion to God
even in the midst of such sufferings : with regard,
I say, to such men, many a time have their
armies been slaughtered, many a time have they
been put to flight ; and their warlike prepara-
tions have ended in total ruin and defeat.
CHAPTER XXVII.
How the Persecution became the Occasion of
Calamities to the Aggressors.
" From the causes I have described, grievous
wars arose, and destructive devastations. Hence
followed a scarcity of the common necessaries
of life, and a crowd of consequent miseries :
hence, too, the authors of these impieties have
either met a disastrous death of extreme suffer-
ing, or have dragged out an ignominious exist-
ence, and confessed it to be worse than death
itself, thus receiving as it were a measure of
punishment proportioned to the heinousness of
their crimes.^ For each experienced a degree
of calamity according to the blind fury with
which he had been led to combat, and as he
thought, defeat the Divine will : so that they
not only felt the pressure of the ills of this pres-
ent hfe, but were tormented also by a most
lively apprehension of punishment in the future
world."
1 Compare Lactantius, On the deaths of the pcrscciUors (De
M. P.), and the Church History of Eusebius.
"•' Literally "beneath the earth," referring of course to the
Graeco-Roman conception of Hades.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
That God chose Coiistantiue to be the Minister
of Blessing.
"And now, with such a mass of impiety op-
pressing the human race, and the commonwealth
in danger of being utterly destroyed, as if by the
agency of some i)estilential disease, and there-
fore needing powerful and effectual aid ; what
was the relief, and what the remedy which the
Divinity devised for these evils? (And by Divin-
ity is meant the one who is alone and truly God,
the possessor of almighty and eternal power : and
surely it cannot be deemed arrogance in one who
has received benefits from (jod, to acknowledge
them in the loftiest terms of praise.) I myself,
then, was the instrument whose services He
chose, and esteemed suited for the accomplish-
ment of his will. Accordingly, beginning at
the remote Britannic ocean, and the regions
where, according to the law of nature, the sun
sinks beneath the horizon, through the aid of
divine power I banished and utterly removed
every form of evil which prevailed, in the hope
that the human race, enlightened through my
instrumentality, might be recalled to a due ob-
servance of the holy laws of God, and at the
same time our most blessed faith might prosper
under the guidance of his almighty hand.
CHAPTER XXIX.
Constantinc^s Expressions of Piety towards God ;
and Praise of the Confessors.
" I SAiD,^ under the guidance of his hand ; for
I would desire never to be forgetful of the grati-
tude due to his grace. IJeheving, therefore, that
this most excellent service had been confided to
me as a special gift, I proceeded as far as the
regions of the East, which, being under the pres-
sure of severer calamities, seemed to demand still
more effectual remedies at my hands. At the
same time I am most certainly persuaded that I
myself owe my life, my every breath, in short,
my very inmost and secret thoughts, entirely to
the favor of the Supreme God. Now I am well
aware that they who are sincere in the pursuit
of the heavenly hope, and have fixed this hope
in heaven itself as the peculiar and predominant
principle of their lives, have no need to depend
on human favor, but rather have enjoyed higher
honors in ];)roportion as they have separated
themselves from the inferior and evil things of
this earthly existence. Nevertheless I deem it
1 [" I said, under the guidance," &c. It seems necessary to sup-
ply some expression of this kind, in order to preserve the sense,
which is otherwise interrupted by the division (in this instance, at
.least, manifestly improper) into chapters. — Bag.'\
5o8
CONSTANTINE.
[II. 29.
'!
incumbent on me to remove at once and most
completely from all such persons the hard neces-
sities laid upon them for a season, and the unjust
inflictions under which they have suffered, though
free from any guilt or just liability. For it would
be strange indeed, that the fortitude and con-
stancy of soul displayed by such men should be
fully apparent during the reign of those whose
first object it was to persecute them on account
of their devotion to God, and yet that the glory
of their character should not be more bright and
blessed, under the administration of a prince
who is His ser\'ant.
CHAPTER XXX.
yl La7i> i^ranti/ig Release from Exile, from Ser-
vice in the Courts, and from the Confiscation
of Property.
" Let all therefore who have exchanged their
country for a foreign land, because they would
not abandon that reverence and iliith toward
Clod to which they had devotetl themselves with
their whole hearts, and have in consequence at
different times been subject to the cruel sentence
of the courts ; together with any who have been
enrolled in the registers of the public courts,
though in time past exempt from such office ;
let these, I say, now render thanks to God the
Liberator of all, in that they are restored to their
hereditary property, and their wonted tranquility.
Let those also who have been despoiled of their
goods, and have hitherto passed a wretched
existence, mourning under the loss of all that
they possessed, once more be restored to their
former homes, their families, and estates, and
receive with joy the bountiful kindness of God.
CHAPTER XXXL
Release likewise granted to Exiles in the Islands.
" FuRTHER-MoKK, it is our Command that all
those who have been detained in the islands
against their will should receive the benefit of
this present provision ; in order that they who
till now have been surrounded by rugged moun-
tains and the encircling barrier of the ocean,
l)cing now set free from that gloomy and deso-
late solitude, may fulfill their fondest wish by
revisiting their dearest friends. Those, too, who
have prolonged a miserable life in the midst of
abject and wretched squalor, welcoming their
restoration as an unloDked-for gain, and discard-
ing henceforth all anxious thoughts, may pass
their lives with us in freedom from all fear. l*'or
that any one could live in a state of fear under
our government, when we boast and believe
ourselves to be the servants of God, would
surely be a thing most extraordinary even to
hear of, and quite incredible ; and our mission
is to rectify the errors of the others.
CHAPTER XXXH.
And to those ignoniiniously employed in the
Mines and Public Works.
" Again, with regard to those who have been
condemned either to the grievous labor of the
mines, or to service in the public works, let them
enjoy the sweets of leisure in place of these long-
continued toils, and henceforth lead a far easier
life, and more accordant with the wishes of their
hearts, exchanging the incessant hardships of
their tasks for quiet relaxation. And if any
have forfeited the common privilege of liberty,
or have unhappily suffered dishonor,^ let them
hasten back every one to the country of his
nativity, and resume with becoming joy their
former positions in society, from which they
have been as it were separated by long residence
abroad.
CHAPTER XXXHL
Concerning those Confessors engaged in Military
Service.
" Once more, with respect to those who had
previously been preferred to any inilitary dis-
tinction, of which they were afterwards deprived,
for tlie cruel and unjust reason that they chose
rather to acknowledge their allegiance to God
than to retain the rank they held ; we leave
them perfect liberty of choice, either to occupy
their former stations, should they be content
again to engage in military service, or after an
honorable discharge, to live in undisturbed tran-
quillity. For it is fair and consistent that men
who have displayed such magnanimity and forti-
tude in meeting the perils to which they have
been exposed, should be allowed the choice
either of enjoying peaceful leisure, or resuming
their former rank.
CHAFFER XXXIV.
7he Liberation of Free Persons condemned to
labor in the Women's Apartmetits, or to Ser-
7'itude.
" Lastf.v, if any have wrongfully been deprived
of the jirivileges of noble lineage, and subjected
to a judicial sentence which has consigned them
1 Glossed by Molzbergcr as " political dishonor."
11. 3S.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
509
to the women's apartments^ and to the hnen
making, there to undergo a cruel and miserable
labor, or reduced them to servitude for the
benefit of the public treasury, without any ex-
emption on the ground of superior birth ; let
such persons, resuming the honors they had
previously enjoyed, and their proper dignities,
henceforward exult in the blessings of liberty,
and lead a glad life. Let the free man,- too, by
some injustice and inhumanity, or even madness,
made a slave, who has felt the sudden transition
from liberty to bondage, and ofttimes bewailed
his unwonted labors, return to his family once
more a free man in virtue of this our ordinance,
and seek those employments which befit a state
of freedom ; and let him dismiss from his re-
membrance those services which he found so
oppressive, and which so ill became liis condi-
tion.
CHAPTER XXXV.
0/ the Inheritance of the Property of Martxjs
and Confessors, also of those who had suffered
Banish7nent or Confiscation of Property.
" Nor must we omit to notice those estates
of which individuals have been deprived on vari-
ous pretenses. For if any of those who have
engaged with dauntless and resolute determina-
tion in the noble and divine conflict of martyr-
dom have also been stripped of their fortunes ;
or if the same has been the lot of the confessors,
who have won for themselves the hope of eternal
treasures ; or if the loss of property has befallen
those who were driven from their native land
because they would not yield to the persecutors,
and betray their faith ; lastly, if any who have
escaped the sentence of death have yet been
despoiled of their worldly goods ; we ordain that
the inheritances of all such persons be trans-
ferred to their nearest kindred. And whereas
the laws expressly assign this right to those most
nearly related, it will be easy to ascertain to
whom these inheritances severally belong. And
it is evidently reasonable that the succession in
these cases should belong to those who would
have stood in the place of nearest affinity, had
the deceased experienced a natural death.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
The Church is declaimed Heir of those who leave
no Kindred ; and the Free Gifts of such Per-
sons Confirmed.
" But should there be no surviving relation to
' In the Greek houses there were separate suites for men "and
women. Compare article Domus, in Smith, Did. 0/ Gr. and Rom.
A ntio.
- [That is, the free subject of inferior rank, accustomed to labor
for his subsistence, but not to the degradation of slavery.]
succeed in due course to the property of those
above-mentioned, I mean the martyrs, or con-
fessors, or those who for some such cause have
been banished from their native land ; in sucli
cases we ordain that the church locally nearest
in each instance shall succeed to tlie inheritance.
And surely it will be no wrong to the departed
that that church should be their heir, for whose
sake they have endured every extremity of suf-
fering. We think it necessary to add this also,
that in case any of the above-mentioned persons
have donated any part of their property in the
way of free gift, possession of such property
shall be assured, as is reasonable, to those who
have thus received it.
CHAPTER XXXVn.
Lands, Gardens, or Houses, but not Actual
Produce from thou, are to be given back.
"And that there may be no obscurity in this
our ordinance, but every one may readily appre-
hend its requirements, let all men hereby know
that if they are now maintaining themselves in
possession of a piece of land, or a house, or
garden, or anything else which had appertained
to the before-mentioned persons, it will be good
and advantageous for them to acknowledge the
fact, and make restitution with the least possible
delay. On the other hand, although it should
appear that some individuals have reaped abun-
dant profits from this unjust possession, we do
not consider that justice demands the restitution
of such profits. They must, however, declare
explicitly what amount of benefit they have thus
derived, and from what sources, and entreat our
pardon for this offense ; in order that their past
covetousness may in some measure be atoned
for, and that the Supreme God may accept this
compensation as a token of contrition, and be
pleased graciously to pardon the sin.
CHAPTER XXXVHI.
In what Manner Reqiiests should be made for
these.
" But it is possible that those who have be-
come masters of such property (if it be right
or possible to allow them such a title) will assure
us by way of apology for their conduct, that it
was not in their power to abstain from this ap-
propriation at a time when a spectacle of misery
in all its forms everywhere met the view ;
when men were cruelly driven from their homes,
slaughtered without mercy, thrust forth without
remorse : when the confiscation of the property
of innocent persons was a eommon thing, and
5IO
CONSTANTINE.
[II. 38.
when persecutions and property seizures were
unceasing. If any defend their conduct by
such reasons as these, and still persist in their
avaricious temper, they shall be made sensible
that such a course will bring punishment on
themselves, and all the more because this cor-
rection of evil is the very characteristic of our
service to the Supreme God. So that it will
henceforth be dangerous to retain what dire ne-
cessity may in time past have compelled men
to take ; especially because it is in any case
incumbent on us to discourage covetous de-
sires, both by persuasion, and by warning exam-
ples.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
The Treasury must restore Lands, Gardens,
and Houses to the Churches.
" Nor shall the treasury itself, should it liave
any of the things w^e have spoken of, be per-
mitted to keep them ; but, without venturing
as it were to raise its voice against the holy
churches, it shall justly relinquish in their favor
what it has for a time unjustly retained. We
ordain, therefore, that all things whatsoever
which shall appear righteously to belong to the
churches, whether the property consist of houses,
or fields and gardens, or whatever the nature of
it may be, shall be restored in their full value
and integrity, and with undiminished right of
possession.
CHAPTER XL.
The Tovihs of Martyrs and the Cemeteries to be
transferred to the Possession of the Churches.
" Aa\iN, with respect to those places which
are honored in being the depositories of the
remains of martyrs, and continue to be memo-
rials of tiieir glorious departure ; how can we
doubt that they rightly belong to the churches,
or refrain from issuing our injunction to that
effect? VoT surely there can be no better liber-
ality, no labor more pleasing or profitable, than
to be thus employed under the guidance of the
Divine Spirit, in order that those things which
have been appropriated on false pretenses by
unjust and wicked men, may be restored, as jus-
ti<c demands, and once more secured to the
holy churciies.
CHAITER XLI.
T7iose who have purchased Property l>elon(^in(^ to
the Church, or received it as a Gift, are to
restore it.
" Am> sin<c it would be wrong in a j^rovision
intended to include all cases, to pass over those
who have either procured any such property by
right of purchase from the treasury, or have
retained it when conveyed to them in the form
of a gift ; let all who have thus rashly indulged
their" insatial)le thirst of gain be assured that,
although by daring to make such purchases they
have done all in their power to ahenate our
clemency from themselves, they shall neverthe-
less not fail of obtaining it, so far as is possible
and consistent with propriety in each case. So
much then is determined.
CHAPTER XLII.
An Earnest Exhortation to worship God.
" And now, since it appears by the clearest
and most convincing evidence, that the miseries
which erewhile oppressed the entire human race
are now banished from every part of the world,
through the power of Almighty God, and art the
same time the counsel and aid which he is
pleased on many occasions to administer through
our agency; it remains for all, both individually
and unitedly, to observe and seriously consider
how great this power and how efficacious this
grace are, which have annihilated and utterly
destroyed this generation, as I may call them,
of most wicked and evil men ; have restored joy
to the good, and diffused it over all countries ;
and now guarantee the fullest authority both to
honor the Divine law as it should be honored,
with all reverence, and pay due observance to
those who have dedicated themselves to the
service of that law. These rising as from some
dark abyss and, with an enlightened knowledge
of the present course of events, will hencefor-
ward render to its precepts that becoming rever-
ence and honor which are consistent with their
pious character.
JvCt this ordinance be published in our Eastern
provinces." '
CHAPTER XLIIL
IIow the Enactments of Constantine were car-
ried into Effect.
Such were the injunctions contained in the
first letter which the emperor addressed to us.
And the provisions of this enactment were
speedily carried into effect, everything being
conducted in a manner quite different from the
atrocities which had but lately been daringly
perpetrated during the cruel ascendancy of the
tyrants. Those persons also who were legally
entitled to it, received the benefit of the em-
peror's liberality.
' [This seems to be the subscription or signature in the emperor's
own handwriting, which is referred to at the end of ch. 23.—
II. 4f>.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
511
CHAPTER XI. IV.
That he promoted Christians to OJfiees of Gov-
ernment, and forbade Gentiles in Such Sta-
tions to offer Sacrifice.
Aftkr this the emj^eror continued to address
himself to matters of high importance, and first
he sent governors to the several provinces,
mostly such as were devoted to the saving foith ;
and if any appeared inclined to adhere to
(icntile worship, he forbade them to offer sacri-
fice. This law applied also to those who sur-
passed the provincial governors in rank and
dignity,^ and even to those who occupied the
highest station, and held the authority of the
Prastorian Prefecture.- If they were Christians,
they were free to act consistently with their
profession ; if otherwise, the law required them
to abstain from idolatrous sacrifices.
CHAPTER XLV.
Statutes which forbade Sacrifice, and enjoined
the Building of Clwtrhes.
Soon after this, two laws were promulgated
about the same time ; one of which was in-
tended to restrain the idolatrous abominations
which in time past had been practiced in every
city and country ; and it provided that no one
should erect images, or practice divination and
other false and foolish arts, or offer sacrifice in
any way.^ The other statute commanded the
heightening of the oratories, and the enlarge-
ment in length and breadth of the churches of
God ; as though it were expected that, now the
madness of polytheism was wholly removed,
pretty nearly all mankind would henceforth
attach themselves to the service of God. His
own personal piety induced the emperor to de-
vise and write these instructions to the gov-
ernors of the several provinces : and the law
farther admonished them not to spare the ex-
penditure of money, but to draw supplies from
1 [That is, the proconsuls, the vicars (or vice-prxfects), and
counts, or provincial t;enerals. — Bag.^
2 [The power of the four Praetorian Prsefects in the time of Con-
stantine is thus described by Gibbon: " i. The Praefect of the East
stretched his ample jurisdiction into the three parts of the globe
which were subject to the Romans, from the cataracts of the Nile to
the banks of the Phasis, and from the mountains of Thrace to the
frontiers of Persia. 2. The important provinces of Pannonia, Dacia,
Macedonia, and Greece once acknowledged the authority of the Pra;-
fect of lUyricum. 3. The power of the Praefect of Italy was not
confined to the country from whence he derived his title; it extended
over the additional territory of Rhaitia as far as the banks of the
Danube, over the dependent islands of the Mediterranean, and over
that part of the continent of Africa which lies between the confines.
of Gyrene and those of Tingitania. 4. The Praefect of the Gauls
comprehended under that plural denomination the kindred provinces
of Britain and Spain, and his authority was obeyed from the wall of
Antoninus to the fort of Mount Atlas." — Decline and Fall, chap.
ZT. — Bag-.]
^ [That is, private sacrifices: for it appears that the idolatrous
temples were allowed to be open {or public worship. — Bag.}
the imperial treasury itself. Similar instructions
were written also to the bishops of the several
churches ; and the emperor was pleased to
transmit the same to myself, being tlu; first
letter which he personally addressed to me.
CHAPTER XLVI.
Constantine's Letter to Eusebius and Other Bish-
ops, respecting the Ihiilding of Churches, with
Instructions to i-epair the Old, and erect Ne7v
Ones on a Larger Scale, zaith the Aid of the
Provincial Governors.
"Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus,
to Eusebius.
" Forasmuch as the unholy and willful rule of
tyranny has persecuted the servants of our
Saviour until this present time, I believe and
have fully satisfied myself, best beloved brother,
that the buildings belonging to all the churches
have either become ruinous through actual
neglect, or have received inadequate attention
from the dread of the violent spirit of the times.
" But now, that liberty is restored, and that
serpent ^ driven from the administration of pub-
lic affairs by the providence of the Supreme
God, and our instrumentality, we trust that all
can see the efficacy of the Divine power, and
that they who through fear of persecution or
through unbelief have fallen into any errors,
will now acknowledge the true God, and adopt
in future that course of life which is according
to truth and rectitude. With respect, therefore,
to the churches over which you yourself preside,
as well as the bishops, presbyters, and deacons
of other churches with whom you are acquainted,
do you admonish all to be zealous in their at-
tention to the buildings of the churches, and
either to repair or enlarge those which at pres-
ent exist, or, in cases of necessity, to erect new
ones.
"We also empower you, and the others
through you, to demand what is needful for the
work, both from the provincial governors and
from the Praetorian Praefect. For they have
received instructions to be most diligent in
obedience to your Holiness's orders. God pre-
serve you, beloved brother." A copy of this
charge was transmitted throughout all the prov-
inces to the bishops of the several churches :
the provincial governors received directions ac-
cordingly, and the imperial statute was speedily
carried into .effect.
' [Licinius, thus designated Tor the subtlety of his character. —
Bag.} More probably for his wickedness, and perhaps with thought
of the " dragon " of the Bonk of Revelation. The word is hpaKuiv,
not oi/)!?. It is the latter which is used in the LXX, where the Eng-
lish version speaks of the serpent as the " subtlest." For historical
and .symbolical use of the words, compare Fergusson, Tree and
Servient Worship (Lond., 1874), and Conway, Demonology and
Devil Lore (N.Y., 1879, 2 v.).
512
CONSTANTINE.
[II. 47.
CHAPTER XLVII.
That he wrote a Letter in Condemnation of
Idolatry.
Moreover, the emperor, who continually made
progress in piety towards God, dispatched an
admonitory letter to the inhabitants of every
province, respecting the error of idolatry into
which his predecessors in power had fallen, in
which he eloquently exhorts his subjects to ac-
knowledge the Supreme God, and openly to
profess their allegiance to his Christ as their
Saviour. This letter also, which is in his own
han hvriting, I have judged it necessary to trans-
late from the Latin for the present work, in
order that we may hear, as it were, the voice of
the emperor himself uttering these sentiments in
the audience of all mankind.
CHAPTER XLVni.
Constantine's Edict to the People of the Prov-
inces concerning the Error of Polytheism,
commencing 7oith Some General Remarks on
I 'irtiie and Vice.
"Victor Constantinus, Maxlmus Augustus,
to the people of the Eastern provinces.
'• Whatever is comprehended under the sov-
ereign ' laws of nature, seems to convey to all
men an adecjuate idea of the forethought and
intelligence of the divine order. Nor can any,
whose minds are directed in the true path of
knowledge to the attainment of that end, enter-
tain a doubt that the just perceptions of sound
reason, as well as those of the natural vision
itself, through the sole influence of genuine
virtue, lead to the knowledge of God. Accord-
ingly no wise man will ever be surprised when
he sees the mass of mankind influenced by op-
posite sentiments. I'or the beauty of virtue
would be useless 2 and unperceived, did not
vice dis])lay in contrast with it the course of
perversity and folly. Hence it is that the one
is crowned with reward, while the most high
God is himself the administrator of judgment
to the other.
"And now 1 will endeavor to lay before you
all as explicitly as possible, the nature of my
own hopes of future happiness.'
' Or " fixed," " appointed."
,. ' r*y •■>. cn"Jcct>ir:>l reading Strorh makes this " fools," instead of
iisdc-s, ' and renders, " For fools would not otherwise recognize
the 1 harm of virtue."
= (The remark r.f Valesins in reference to the difTicuIty of this
chapter .ipiK^ars prol.ahlc; viz. that it is panly to be attrilmted to
Con>tantine's own want of ilcarncss, and partly to his translator,
who has rendered obscure Latin into still more obscure Oreck —
CHAPTER XLIX.
Concerning Constantine's Pions Father, and the
Persecutors Diocletian and Maximian.
"The former emperors I have been accus-
tomed to regard as those with whom I could
have no sympathy,^ on account of the savage
cruelty of their character. Indeed, my father
was the only one who uniformly practiced the
duties of humanity, and with admirable piety
called for the blessing of God the Father on all
his actions, but the rest, unsound in mind, were
more zealous of cruel than gentle measures ; and
this disposition they indulged without restraint,
and thus persecuted the true doctrine during
the whole period of their reign. Nay, so vio-
lent did their malicious fury become, that in the
midst of a profound peace, as regards both the
religious and ordinary interests of men, they
kindled, as it were, the flames of a civil war.-
CHAPTER L.
That the Persecution originated on Account of
the Oracle of Apollo, tvho, it was said, could
not give Oracles beca2ise of " the Righteous
Menl'
" About that time it is said that Apollo spoke
from a deep and gloomy cavern, and through
the medium of no human voice, and declared
that the righteous men on earth were a bar to
his speaking the truth, and accordingly that the
oracles from the tripod were fallacious. Hence
it was that he suffered his tresses to droop in
token of grief,^ and mourned the evils which the
loss of the oracular spirit would entail on man-
kind. But let us mark the consequences of
this.
CHAPTER LI.
That Constantifie, when a Youth, heard from
him who ivrote the Persecution Edict that
" the Righteous Men " were the Christians.
" I CALL now on thee, most high God, to wit-
ness that, when young, I heard him who at that
time was chief among the Roman emperors, un-
liajipy, truly unhappy as he was, and laboring
under mental delusion, make earnest enquiry of
his attendants as to who these righteous ones on
earth were, and that one of the Pagan priests then
^ The word means " havinc; no share with," and sometimes
"disinherited." It may jierhaps mean, " I have been accustomed
to think of the former emperors as having been deprived of their pos-
sessions on account," &c.
^ [The persecution of the Christians, with its attendant horrors,
being the act, not of foreign enemies, but of their countrymen and
fellow-citizens. — ^^"g'.]
' 'I'liis is translated by Molzberger, "Therefore the priests let
their hair liang down," &c.
II. 56.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
513
present replied that they were doubtless the
Christians. This answer he eagerly received,
like some honeyed draught, and unsheathed the
sword which was ordained for the punishment
of crime, against those whose holiness was be-
yond reproach. Immediately, therefore, he
issued those sanguinary edicts, traced, if I may
so express myself, with a sword's point dipi)ed
in blood ; at the same time commanding his
judges to tax their ingenuity for the invention
of new and more terrible punishments.
CHAPTER LIT.
The Manifold Forms of Torture and Punish-
ment practiced against tlie Christians.
"Then, indeed, one might see with what arro-
gance those venerable worshipers of God were
daily exposed, with continued and relentless
cruelty, to outrages of the most grievous kind,
and how that modesty of character ^ which no
enemy had ever treated with disrespect, became
the mere sport of their infuriated fellow-citizens.
Is there any punishment by fire, are there any
tortures or forms of torment, which were not
applied to all, without distinction of age or sex ?
Then, it may be truly said, the earth shed tears,
the all- encircling compass of heaven mourned
because of the pollution of blood ; and the very
light of day itself was darkened in grief at the
spectacle.
CHAPTER LIII.
That the Bar/Marians kindly received the
Christians.
" But what is the consequence of this? Why,
the barbarians themselves may boast now of the
contrast their conduct presents to these cruel
deeds ; for they received and kept in gentlest
captivity those who then fled from amongst us,
and secured to them not merely safety from
danger, but also the free exercise of their holy
religion. And now the Roman people bear
that lasting stain which the Christians, at that
time driven from the Roman world, and taking
refuge with the barbarians, have branded on
them.
CHAPTER LTV.
What Vengeance overtook those who on Account
of the Oracle raised the Persecution.
"But why need I longer dwell on these
lamentable events, and the general sorrow which
VOL. I. I.
in consequence pervaded the world? The
perpetrators of this dreadful guilt are now no
more : they have experienced a miserable end,
and are consigned to unceasing punishment in
the dei')ths of the lower world. They encoun-
tered each other in civil strife, and have left
neither name nor race behind. And surely this
calamity would never have befallen them, had
not that impious deliverance of the Pythian
oracle exercised a delusive power over them.'
CHAPTER LV.
Constantine gives Glory to God, makes Grateful
Acknotvledgment of the Sig?i of the Cross, and
prays for the Churches and People.
" And now I beseech thee, most mighty God,
to be merciful and gracious to thine Eastern
nations, to thy people in these provinces, worn
as they are by protracted miseries ; and grant
them healing through thy servant. Not without
cause, O holy God, do I prefer this prayer to
thee, the Lord of all. Under thy guidance have
I devised and accomplished measures fraught
with blessings : preceded by thy sacred sign I
have led thy armies to victory : and still, on
each occasion of public danger, I follow the
same symbol of thy perfections while advancing
to meet the foe. Therefore have I dedicatetl
to thy service a soul duly attempered by love
and fear. For thy name I truly love, while I
regard with reverence that power of which thou
hast given abundant proofs, to the confirmation
and increase of my faith. I hasten, then, to
devote all my powers to the restoration of thy
most holy dwelling-place, which those profane
and impious men have defiled by the contami-
nation of violence.
CHAPTER LVI.
He prays that All may be Christians, but
compels None.
" My own desire is, for the common good of
the world and the advantage of all mankind,
that thy people should enjoy a life of peace and
undisturbed concord. Let those, therefore, who
still delight in error, be made welcome to the
same degree of peace and tranquillity which
they have who believe. For it may be that this
restoration of equal privileges to all will prevail
to lead them into the straight path. Let no one
molest another, but let every one do as his soul
desires. Only let men of sound judgment be
assured of this, that those only can live a life of
holiness and purity, whom thou callest to a reli-
' Compare, on all this, the Church History and notes, and also
the Prolegomena to this work.
1
514
CONSTANTINE.
[11. 56.
ance on thy holy laws. With regard to those
who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them
have, if they please, their temples ' of Hes : 7ve
have the glorious edifice of thy truth, which thou
hast given us as our native home.- We pray,
however, that they too may receive the same
blessing, and thus experience that heartfelt joy
which unity of sentiment inspires.
CHAPTER LVII.
Hf gh'cs Glory to God, who has g/tw;/ Light by
his Son to those who were in Error.
" And truly our worship is no new or recent
thing, but one which thou hast ordained for
thine own due honor, from the time wiien,
as we believe, this system of the universe was
first established. And, although mankind have
deeply fallen, and have been seduced by mani-
lold errors, yet hast thou revealed a pure light
in the person of thy Son, that the power of evil
should not utterly prevail, and hast thus given
testimony to all men concerning thyself.
CHAPTER LVni.
He glorifies him agai?i for his Government of
the Universe.
"The truth of this is assured to us by thy
works. It is thy power which removes our guilt,
and makes us faithful. The sun and the moon
have their setUed course. The stars move in
no uncertain orbits round this terrestrial globe.
The revolution of the seasons recurs according
to unerring laws. The solid fabric of the earth
was established by thy word : the winds receive
their impulse at appointed times; and the
course of the waters continues with ceaseless
flow,' the ocean is circumscribed by an immov-
able barrier, and whatever is comprehended
within the comj) ass of earth and sea, is all con-
trived fur wondrous and important ends.
' Or " groves. "
> I'Oi-ir.p rari 4,<iaivf,iiu>Ka<t. The clause is thus rendered by
ValcMus: N.« splendidissimam domum veritatis tu.x, quam nas-
ccniibu, nobis doi.aMi, rc.mcm.is." This seems almost as unintcl-
liKiblc as the ongin-il. I he traiisjati.m above attempted yields
perhaps a sense not incnnsistcm with the general scope of the pas^
jaKC.-A«^l ijck) ren.lcrs ".according to nature." Molzbereer
has ihrough no mem on our part." Stroth renders " charactcris-
lically or .•» our own natural possession " (i.e. eigcnthiimlich).
and IS confirmed by Hein.chen. whde Christophorson Ls " natura '
an. I ortcs.us a natura." The Last is the best ir„,„!atio„ " l,y
nature. As a matter of i„l,-rf.r.lalw„ liagster is prnbablv wronl-
K'lltle.'o.hr'k'-''""-^"'^ "'=•"■. ^^•""^"'const.aE h^ad the
« 'iul h. mr^-M''"* '" """' "' "'". '"^ h-'d the same thought
change , hi. f,^ I- 'Tb""'"' ''•'*>'•'= '^^ " '"■"• °f f-'^''." '^<" ^v-
changc this for a he (Rnm. 1. a,; ii. j^- ^f ^i. 2, and 2i) This
.URKcs.s however another possible meaning th.a' the^ Vruth
known •'through .h. ,h.„g, ,hat are m.ade"''"(kom. i .0) For
Grant / "l/'"''^. compare interesting note in
" Were it not so, were not all regulated by the
tletermination of thy will, so great a diversity,
so manifold a division of power, would unques-
tional)ly have brought ruin on the whole race
and its affairs. For those agencies which have
maintained a mutual strife ^ would thus have car-
ried to a more deadly length that hostility against
the human race which they even now exercise,
though unseen by mortal eyes.
CHAPTER LIX.
He gives Glory to God, as the Constant Teacher
of Good.
"Abundant thanks, most mighty God, and
Lord of all, be rendered to thee, that, by so
much as our nature becomes known from the
diversified pursuits of man, by so much the more
are the precepts of thy divine doctrine confirmed
to those whose thoughts are directed aright, and
who are sincerely devoted to true virtue. As for
those who will not allow themselves to be cured
of their error, let them not attribute this to any
but themselves. P'or that remedy which is of
sovereign and healing virtue is openly placed
within the reach of all. Only let not any one
inflict an injury on that religion which ex])eri-
ence itself testifies to be pure and undefiled.
Henceforward, therefore, let us all enjoy in com-
mon the privilege placed within our reach, I
mean the blessing of peace, endeavoring to keep
our conscience pure from all that is contrary.
CHAPTER LX.
An Ad??iojiition at the Close of the Edict, that
No One should trou/de his Neighbor.
" Once more, let none use that to the detri-
ment of another which he may himself have re-
ceived on conviction of its truth ; but let every
one, if it be possible, apply what he has under-
stood and known to the benefit of his neighbor ;
if otherwise, let him relinquish the attempt. For
it is one thing voluntarily to undertake the con-
flict for immortality, another to compel others
to do so from the fear of punishment.
" These are our words ; and we have enlarged
on these topics more than our ordinary clemency
would have dictated, because we were unwilling
to dissemble or be false to the true faith ; and
the more so, since we understand there are some
who say that the rites of the heathen temples,
and the power of darkness, have been entirely
removed. We should indeed have earnestly
* [Constantine seems here to allude to the Gentile deities as
powers of evil, <:apable, if unrestrained by a superior power, of
working universal ruin. — Ba^.]
II. 64.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
515
recommended such removal to all men, were it
not that the rebellious spirit of those wicked
errors still continues obstinately fixed in the
minds of some, so as to discourage the hope of
any general restoration of mankind to the ways
of truth." 1
CHAPTER LXI.
IIoiv Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relatiiig to Aj-ius}
In this manner the emperor, like a powerful
herald of God, addressed himself by his own
letter to all the provinces, at the same time warn-
ing his subjects against superstitious- error, and
encouraging them in the pursuit of true godli-
ness. But in the midst of his joyful anticipa-
tions of the success of this measure, he received
tidings of a most serious disturbance which had
invaded the peace of the Church. This intelli-
gence he heard with deep concern, and at once
endeavored to devise a remedy for the evil. The
origin of this disturbance may be thus described.
The people of God were in a truly flourishing
state, and abounding in the practice of good
works. No terror from without assailed them,
but a bright and most profound peace, through
the favor of God, encompassed his Church on
every side. ♦ Meantime, however, the spirit of
envy was watching to destroy our blessings,
which at first crept in unperceived, but soon
revelled in the midst of the assemblies of the
saints. At length it reached the bishops them-
selves, and arrayed them in angry hostility against
each other, on pretense of a jealous regard for
the doctrines of Divine truth. Hence it was
that a mighty fire was kindled as it were from a
little spark, and which, originating in the first
instance in the Alexandrian church,^ overspread
the whole of Egypt and Libya, and the further
Thebaid. Eventually it extended its ravages to
the other provinces and cities of the empire ; so
that not only the prelates of the churches might
be seen encountering each other in the strife of
words, but the people themselves were com-
pletely divided, some adhering to one faction
and others to another. Nay, so notorious did
the scandal of these proceedings become, that
the sacred matters of inspired teaching were ex-
posed to the most shameful ridicule in the very
theaters of the unbelievers. -
1 The editorial "we" used by Bag. throughout these edicts has
been retained, although the first person singular is employed through-
out in the original.
' For literature relating to Arianism, compare Literature at the
end of article by Schafl", in Smith and Wace, Diet, i (1877), 159,
and in the Schaff-Herzog Encyelcfxpdia, i, p. 137.
- "Demoniacal." 7709 renders " diabolical."
^ It vas at Alexandria that the controversy with Arius arose.
He was called to account by Alexander of Alexandria who sum-
moned one council and then another, at which Arius and his fol'jw-
ers were excommunicated.
L 1
CHAPTER LXn.
Concerning the Same Arius, and the Melitians}
SoMK thus at Alexandria maintained an obsti-
nate conflict on the highest questions. Others
throughout Egypt and the Upper Thebaid, were
at variance on account of an earlier controversy :
so that the churches were everywhere distracted
by divisions. The body therefore being thus
diseased, the whole of Libya caught the conta-
gion ; and the rest of the remoter provinces l)e-
came affected with the same disorder. For the
disputants at Alexandria sent emissaries to the
l)ishops of the several provinces, who accord-
ingly ranged themselves as partisans on either
side, and shared in the same spirit of discord.
CHAPTER LXHL
Ho7i> Constantine scut a Afessenger and a Letter
concernijig Peace.
As soon as the emperor was informed of these
facts, which he heard with much sorrow of heart,
considering them in the light of a calamity per-
sonally affecting himself, he forthwith selected
from the Christians in his train one whom he
well knew to be approved for the sobriety and
genuineness of his faith,^ and who had before
this time distinguished himself by the boldness
of his religious profession, and sent him to nego-
tiate peace - between the dissentient parties at
Alexandria. He also made him the bearer of a
most needful and appropriate letter to the origi-
nal movers of the strife : and this letter, as ex-
hibiting a specimen of his watchful care over
God's people, it may be well to introduce into
this our narrative of his life. Its purport was as
follows.
CHAPTER LXIV.
Constantine's Letter to Alexander the Bishop,
and Arius the Presbyter.
"Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus,
to Alexander and Arius.
" I call that God to witness, as well I may,
who is the helper of my endeavors, and the
Preserver of all men, that I had a twofold
reason for undertaking that duty which I have
now performed.
' [The Melitians, or Meletians, an obscure Egyptian sect, of
whom little satisfactory is recorded. — Bag.^ Compare Blunt,
Diet, of Scets, Heresies, &c. (1874), 305-308.
' [Hosius, bishop of Cordova. — 5fl,f.] Hosius had already
been for some time a trusted adviser, having acted for Constantine
also in the Donatist matters. Compare on Hosius the full article of
Morse in Smith and Wace.
- By " acting as umpire."
5i6
CONSTANTINE.
[II. 65.
CHAPTER LXV.
His Continual Anxiety for Peace.
" My design then was, first, to bring the di-
verse judgments formed by all nations respect-
ing the Deity to a condition, as it were, of
settled uniformity ; and, secondly, to restore to
health the system of the world, then suffering
under the malignant power of a grievous dis-
temper. Keeping these objects in view, I
sought to accomplish the one by the secret eye
of thought, while the other I tried to rectify by
the power of military authority. For I was
aware that, if I should succeed in establishing,
according to my hopes, a common harmony
of sentiment among all the servants of God, the
general course of affairs would also experience
a change correspondent to the pious desires of
them all.
CHAPTER LXVI.
Tliat he also adjusted the Conti-oversies which
had ai isen in Africa.
" Finding, then, that the whole of Africa was
pervaded by an intolerable spirit of mad folly,
through the influence of those who with heedless
frivolity had presumed to rend the religion of
the people into diverse sects ; I was anxious to
check this disorder, and could discover no other
remedy equal to the occasion, except in sending
some of yourselves to aid in restoring mutual
harmony among the disputants, after I had re-
moved that common enemy ^ of mankind who
had interposed his lawless sentence for the pro-
hibition of your holy synods.
CHAPTER LXVH.
That Religion began in the East.
" For since the power of Divine light, and
the law of sacred worship, which, proceeding
in the first instance, through the favor of God,
from the bosom, as it were, of the East, have
illumined the world, by their sacred radiance,
I naturally believed that you would be the first
to promote the salvation of other nations, and
resolved with all energy of thought and diligence
of enquiry to seek your aid. As soon, therefore,
as I had secured my decisive victory and un-
questionable triumi>h over my enemies, my first
enquiry was concerning that object which I felt
to be of paramotmt interest and importance.
1 [Licinius, \yhose prohibition of synods is referred to in Bk. i,
ch. 51. The disputes here mentioned are those between the
Catholic Christians and the Donatists, a very violent sect which
sprung up in Africa after the persecution by Diocletian. — />ai'.J
CHAPTER LXVni.
Being grieved by the Dissension, lie counsels
Peace.
" But, O glorious Providence of God ! how
deep a wound did not my ears only, but my
very heart receive in the report that divisions
existed among yourselves more grievous still
than those which continued in that country ! ^
so that you, through whose aid I had hoped to
procure a remedy for the errors of others, are
in a state which needs healing even more than
theirs. And yet, having made a careful enquiry
into the origin and foundation of these differ-
ences, I find the cause to be of a truly insignifi-
cant character, and quite unworthy of such
fierce contention. Feeling myself, therefore,
compelled to address you in this letter, and to
appeal at the same time to your unanimity - and
sagacity, I call on Divine Providence to assist
me in the task, v/hile I interrupt your dissen-
sion in the character of a minister of peace.
And with reason : for if I might expect, with
the help of a higher Power, to be able without
difficulty, by a judicious appeal to the pious
feelings of those who heard me, to recall them
to a better spirit, even though the occasion of
the disagreement were a greater one, how can
I refrain from promising myself a far easier
and more speedy adjustment of this difference,
when the cause which hinders general harmony
of sentiment is intrinsically trifling and of little
moment ?
CHAPTER LXIX.
Origin of the Controversy between Alexander
and Alius, afid thatihese Questions ought not
to have been discussed. -
" I UNDERSTAND, then, that the origin of the
present controversy is this. * When you, Alex-
ander, demanded of the presbyters what opin-
ion they severally maintained respecting a cer-
tain passage in the Divine law,^ or rather, I
should say, that you asked them something con-
nected with an unprofitable question, then you,
Arius, inconsiderately insisted on- what ought
never to have been conceived at all, or if con-
ceived, should have been buried in profound
silence. Hence it was that a dissension arose
between you, fellowship was withdrawn,''' and
' [Africa: alluding to the schism of the Donatists. — Bag.\
- Or " nuitual."
' [The word I'o^o? seems to be commonly used by Fusebius as
a general term for Divine revelation; as we employ the word
" Si ripture." — />'rt.4,'l
- The plain English " stuck to" represents the idea of Hcinichen
{niiiiito ht/ixissfs itifixunique teneres) followed by i^Iolz (mil
uukluger Hartn'dckigkeit festhicHcst'). flag, had " gave utterance
tc," and with this Vales., 170a, and Sir. correspond.
^ '^-g-t " Th; .T'-eting of tne synod was prohibited."
II. 71.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
517
the holy people, rent into diverse parties, no
longer preserved the unity of the one body*
Now, therefore, do ye both exhibit an e([ual
degree of forbearance,* and receive the advice
which your fellow-servant righteously gives.
What then is this advice ? *" It was wrong in the
first instance to propose such questions as these,
or to reply to them when propounded. For
those points of discussion which are enjoined
by the authority of no law, but rather suggested
by the contentious spirit which is fostered by
misused leisure, even though they may be in-
tended merely as an intellectual exercise, ought
certainly to be confined to the region of our
own thoughts, and not hastily produced in the
popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly intrusted to
the general ear. = For how very few are there
able either accurately to comprehend, or ade-
quately to explain subjects so sublime and
abstruse in their nature? Or, granting that
one were fully competent for this, how many
people will he convince? Or, who, again, in
dealing with questions of such subtle nicety as
these, can secure himself against a dangerous
declension from the truth? It is incumbent
therefore on us in these cases to be sparing of
our words, lest, in case we ourselves are unable,
through the feebleness of our natural faculties,
to give a clear explanation of the subject before
us, or, on the other hand, in case the slowness
of our hearers' understandings disables them
from arriving at an accurate apprehension of
what we say, from one or other of these causes
the people be reduced to the alternative either
of blasphemy or schism.
CHAPTER LXX.
An Exhortation to Unanimity.
" Fet therefore both the unguarded question
and the inconsiderate answer receive your
mutual forgiveness.^ For the cause of your
difference has not been any of the leading
doctrines or precepts of the Divine law, nor has
any new heresy respecting the worship of God
arisen among you. You are in truth of one and
the same judgment : ^ you may therefore well
join in communion and fellowship.
* On " forgiveness."
1 Rendered " forbearance" above.
2 [The emperor seems at this time to have had a very imperfect
knowledge of the errors of the Arian heresy. After the Council of
Nice, at which he heard them fully explained, he wrote of them in
terms of decisive condemnation in his letter to the Alexandrian
chiirch. Vide Socrates' Eccles. Hist., PA-. i, ch. 9. — Bng-^
Neither at this time nor at any time does Constantine seem to
have entered very fully into an appreciation of doctrinal niceties.
Later he was more than tolerant of semi-Arianism. He seems
to have depended a good deal on the " explanations " of others,
and to have been led in a somewhat devious path in trying to follow
all.
CHAITER LXXL
There should be no Contention in Matters which
are in themselves of Little Moment.
" For as long as you continue to contend
about these small and very insignificant ques-
tions, it is not fitting that so large a portion of
God's people should be under the direction of
your judgment, since you are thus divided be-
tween yourselves. I believe it indeed to be not
merely unbecoming, but positively evil, that such
should be the case. Rut I will refresh your
minds by a litde illustration, as follows. You
know that philosophers, though they all adhere
to one system, are yet frequently at issue on
certain points, and differ, perhaps, in their
degree of knowledge : yet they are recalled to
harmony of sentiment by the uniting power of
their common doctrines. If this be true, is it
not far more reasonable that you, who are the
ministers of the Supreme God, should be of one
mind respecting the profession of the same
religion? But let us still more thoughtfully and
with closer attention examine what I have said,
and see whether it be right that, on the ground
of some trifling and foolish verbal difference
between ourselves, brethren should assume
towards each other the attitude of enemies, and
the august meeting of the Synod be rent by
profane disunion, because of you who wrangle
together on points so trivial and altogether un-
essential? This is vulgar, and rather charac-
teristic of childish ignorance, than consistent
with the wisdom of priests and men of sense.^
Let us withdraw ourselves with a good will from
these temptations of the devil. Our great God
and common Saviour of all has granted the
same light to us all. Permit me, who am his
servant, to bring my task to a successful issue,
under the direction of his Providence, that I
may be enabled, through my exhortations, and
diligence, and earnest admonition, to recall his
people to communion and fellowship. For since
you have, as I said, but one faith, and one sen-
timent respecting our religion, and since the
Divine commandment in all its parts enjoins on
us all the duty of maintaining a spirit of concord,
let not the circumstance which has led to a slight
difference between you, since it does not affect
the validity of the whole, cause any division or
schism among you. And this I say without in
any way desiring to force you to entire unity of
judgment in regard to this truly idle question,
whatever its real nature may be. For the dig-
nity of your synod may be preserved, and the
communion of your whole body maintained
unbroken, however wide a difference may exist
among you as to unimportant matters. For we
are not all of us like-minded on every subject.
5i8
CONSTANTINE.
[II. 71.
nor is there such a thing as one disposition and
iudgment common to all alike. As far, then, as
regards the Divine Providence, let there be one
faith, and one understanding among you, one
united judgment in reference to God. But as
to your subtle disputations on questions of little
or no significance, though you may be unable to
harmonize in sentiment, such differences should
be consigned to the secret custody of your own
minds and thoughts. And now, let the precious-
ness of common affection, let faith in the truth,
let the honor due to God and to the observance
of his law continue immovably among you.
Resume, then, your mutual feelings of friendship,
love, and regard : restore to the people their
wonted embracings ; and do ye yourselves, hav-
ing purified your souls, as it were, once more
acknowledge one another. For it often happens
that when a reconciliation is effected by the
removal of the causes of enmity, friendship
becomes even sweeter than it was before.
CHAPTER LXXII.
The Excess of his Pious Concern caused him to
shed Tears ; and his Intcfided Journey to the
East was postponed because of These Things.
" Restore me then my quiet days, and un-
troubled nights, that the joy of undimmed
hght, the delight of a tranquil life, may hence-
forth be my portion. Else must I needs
mourn, with constant tears, nor shall I be able
to pass the residue of my days in peace. For
while the people of God, whose fellow-servant
I am, are thus divided amongst themselves by
an unreasonable and pernicious spirit of conten-
tion, how is it possible that I shall be able to
maintain tranquillity of mind? And I will give
you a proof how great my sorrow has been on
this behalf. Not long since I had visited Nico-
media, and intended forthwith to proceed from
that city to the East. It was while I was hasten-
ing towards you, and had already accomplished
the greater part of the distance, that the news
of this matter reversed my plan, that I might
not be compelled to see with my own eyes that
which I felt myself scarcely able even to hear.
Open then for me henceforward by your unity
of judgment that road to the regions of the East
which your dissensions have closed against me,
and permit me speedily to see yourselves and
all other peoples rejoicing together, and render
due acknowledgment to God in the language of
praise and thanksgiving for the restoration of
general concord and liberty to all."
CHAPTER LXXHI.
The CoJitroversy continues without Abatement,
even after the Receipt of This Letter.
In this manner the pious emperor endeavored
by means of the foregoing letter to promote the
peace of the Church of God. And the excel-
lent man ^ to whom it was intrusted performed
his part not merely by communicating the letter
itself, but also by seconding the views of him
who sent it ; for he was, as I have said, in all
respects a person of pious character. The evil,
however, was greater than could be remedied
by a single letter, insomuch that the acrimony
of the contending parties continually increased,
and the effects of the mischief extended to all
the Eastern provinces. These things jealousy
and some evil spirit who looked with an envious
eye on the prosperity of the Church, wrought.
1 [Hosius of Cordova, mentioned above, ch. 63. — Bag.'^
BOOK III.
CHAPTER I.
A Comparison of Consiaiitiiic's Piety ivith the
Wickedness of the Persecutors.
In this manner that spirit who is the hater of
good, actuated by envy at the blessing enjoyed
by the Church, continued to raise against her the
stormy troubles of intestine discord, in the midst
of a i)eriod of peace and joy. Meanwhile, how-
ever, the divinely-favored emperor did not
slight the duties befitting him, but exhibited in
his whole conduct a direct contrast to those
atrocities of which the cruel tyrants had been
lately guilty,' and thus triumphed over every
enemy that opposed him. For in the first place,
the tyrants, being themselves alienated from the
true God, had enforced by every compulsion the
worship of false deities : Constantine convinced
mankind by actions as well as words," that these
had but an imaginary existence, and exhorted
them to acknowledge the only true God. They
had derided his Christ with words of blasphemy :
he assumed that as his safeguard^ against which
they directed their blasphemies, and gloried in
the symbol of the Saviour's passion. They had
persecuted and driven from house and home the
servants of Christ : he recalled them every one,
and restored thein to their native homes. They
had covered them with dishonor : he made their
condition honorable and enviable in the eyes
of all. They had shamefully plundered and sold
the goods of godly men : Constantine not only
replaced this loss, but still further enriched them
with abundant presents. They had circulated
injurious calumnies, through their written ordi-
nances, against the prelates of the Church : he,
on the contrary, conferred dignity on these indi-
viduals by personal marks of honor, and by his
edicts and statutes raised them to higher distinc-
tion than before. They had utterly demolished
and razed to the ground the houses of prayer :
he commanded that those which still existed
should be enlarged, and that new ones should be
raised on a magnificent scale at the expense of
' Compare contrast with the other emperors in Prolegomena,
under Life.
- Eus'ebius expressly states that Constantine's words had little
result in conversion. It is meant here that the success of one who
relied on God itself proved the vanity nf idols.
•* This nny perhaps mean " ordered to be inscribed " or " wrote
it to be his safeguard." This form of Bag. is a satisfactory para-
phrase. ^
the imperial treasury. They had ordered the
inspired records to be burnt and utterly de-
stroyed : he decreed that copies of them should
be multiplied, and magnificently adorned'' at
the charge of the imperial treasury. They had
strictly forbidden the prelates, anywhere or on
any occasion, to convene synods ; whereas he
gathered them to his court from every province,
received them into his palace, and even to his
own private apartments and thought them worthy
to share his home and table. They had honored
the demons with offerings : Constantine exposed
their error, and continually distributed the now
useless materials for sacrifice, to those who would
apply them to a better use. They had ordered
the pagan temples to be sumptuously adorned :
he razed to their foundations those of them which
had been the chief objects of superstitious rever-
ence. They had subjected God's servants to
the most ignominious punishments : he took
vengeance on the persecutors, and inflicted on
them just chastisement in the name of God,
while he held the memory of his holy martyrs
in constant veneration. They had driven God's
worshipers from the imperial palaces : he placed
full confidence in them at all times, and knowing
them to be the better disposed and more faithful
than any beside. They, the victims of avarice,
voluntarily subjected themselves as it were to
the pangs of Tantalus : he with royal magnifi-
cence unlocked all his treasures, and distributed
his gifts with rich and high-souled hberality.
They committed countless murders, that they
might plunder or confiscate the wealth of their
victims ; while throughout the reign of Constan-
tine the sword of justice hung idle everywhere,
and both people and municipal magistrates " in
every provence were governed rather by pater-
nal authority than by any constraining.*' Surely
* Their bindings were adorned with precious stones according to
Cedrenus. Compare Prolegomena, Character, Ulagnificcncc.
5 [UoAiTtuTwi' ai'6pMi', here, apparently, the Deciirions, who
formed the corporations of the cities, and were subject to respon-
sible and burdensome offices. Vide Gibbon, l^ecline and Fall,
chap. 17. — A'".!,''-] So Valesius maintains, and has been generally
if not universally followed. Though it might be overventuresome
to change the translation therefore, it befits the sense better and
suits the words admirably to apply to the different classes, Pere-
grini and Civcs. This distinction did not fully pass away until the
time of Justinian (Long, art. Cir'itas, in Smith, Vict. Cr. and
Rom. Ant.), and it seems certain that Eusebius meant this.
'' This above is a sort of resume of the life of Constantine. For
illustration of the various facts mentioned, compare the latter part
of the Chnrcli History and the various acts and documents in this
Life. Compare also Prolegomena, under Life, and especially under
Character, It seems now and then to be like a little homily on
'I
520
CONSTANTINE.
[III. I.
it must seem to all who duly regard these facts,
that a new and fresh era of existence had begun
to appear, and a light heretofore unknown sud-
denly to dawn from the midst of darkness on the
human race : and all must confess that these
things were entirely the work of God, who raised
up this pious emperor to withstand the multitude
of the ungodly.
CHAPTER II.
Farther Remarks on Constantine's Piety, and
his Open Testimony to the Sign of the Cross.
And when we consider that their iniquities
were without example, and the atrocities which
they dared to perpetrate against the Church
such as had never been heard of in any age of
the world, well might God himself bring before
us something entirely new, and work thereby
effects such as had hitherto been never either
recorded or observed. And what miracle was
ever more marvelous than the virtues of this
our emperor, whom the wisdom of God has
vouchsafed as a gift to the human race? For
truly he maintained a continual testimony to the
Christ of God with all boldness, and before all
men ; and so far was he from shrinking from an
open profession of the Christian name, that he
rather desired to make it manifest to all that
he regarded this as his highest honor, now im-
pressing on his face the salutary sign, and now
glorying in it as the trophy which led him on to
victory.^
CHAPTER III.
Of his Picture surmounted by a Cross and hav-
ing beneath it a Dragon.
And besides this, he caused to be painted on
a lofty tablet, and set up in the front of the por-
tico of his palace, so as to be visible to all, a
representation of the salutary sign ])laced above
his head, and below it that hateful and savage
adversary of mankind, who by means of the
tyranny of the ungodly had wasted the Church
of God, falling headlong, under the form of a
dragon, to the abyss of destruction. For the
sacred oracles in the books of God's prophets
have described him as a dragon and a crooked
serpent ; ^ and for this reason the em])cror thus
publicly displayed a painted - resemblance of
the dragon beneath his own and his children's
the glory of having the shoe on the other foot — the glory of having
clone to others what others had done to them.
' Note the explicit testimony of Eusebius here, and compare
Prolet;omcna, under RcUt^ioiis Characteristics.
' Kspecially the book of Kevclaiion, and Isaiah as quoted below.
- [Literally, by encaustic painting. See I3k. i, ch. 3, note. —
Bas\
feet, stricken through with a dart, and cast head-
long into the depths of the sea.
In this manner he intended to represent the
secret adversary of the human race, and to indi-
cate that he was consigned to the gulf of per-
dition by virtue of the salutary trophy placed
above his head. This allegory, then, was thus
conveyed by means of the colors of a picture :
and I am filled with wonder at the intellectual
greatness of the emperor, who as if by divine
inspiration thus expressed what the prophets
had foretold concerning this monster, saying
that " God would bring his great and strong
and terrible sword against the dragon, the flying
serpent ; and would destroy the dragon that was
in the sea.'"^ This it was of which the emperor
gave a true and faithful representation in the
picture above described.
CHAPTER IV.
A Farther Notice of the Controversies raised
in Egypt by Arius.
In such occupations as these he employed
himself with pleasure : but the effects of that
envious spirit which so troubled the peace of
the churches of God in Alexandria, together
with the Theban and Egyptian schism, con-
tinued to cause him no Httle disturbance of
mind. For in fact, in every city bishops were
engaged in obstinate conflict with bishops, and
people rising against people ; and almost like
the fabled Symplegades,^ coming into violent
collision with each other. Nay, some were so
far transported beyond the bounds of reason as
to be guilty of reckless and outrageous conduct,
and even to insult the statues of the emperor.
This state of things had little power to excite
his anger, but rather caused in him sorrow of
spirit ; for he deeply deplored the folly thus
exhibited by deranged men.
CHAPTER V.
Of the Disagreement respecting the Celebration
of Easter.
Wrv before this time another most virulent
disorder had existed, and long afflicted the
^ Isa. x.wii. I. This is not taken from the Septuagint transla-
tion, as it corresponds with the Hebrew against the I, XX. It differs
in the word used for " terrible," and none of the editions (or at least
not the Vatican, Holmes and Parsons, Van Ess, or Tischendorf ) and
none of the MSS. cited by Holmes and Parsons, have the phrase '' in
the sea " as the Hebrew. Grabe has this latter as various reading
(ed. Hagster, 16°, p. 74), but there is hardly a possibility that it is
the true readiiiii.
' The famous rocks in the Enxine which were wont to close
against one another and crush all passing ships, and by which the
Argo was said {Oil. 12. 6y) to be the only ship vvhicli ever passed
in safety.
III. 7.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
521
Church ; I mean the difference respecting the
sahitary feast of Ivister.^ • For while one party
asserted that the Jewish custom should be ad-
hereil to, the other affirmed that the exact
recurrence of the period should be observed,
without following the authority of those who
were in error, and strangers to gospel grace,-
Accordingly, the i)eople being thus in every
place divided in respect of this,^ and the sacred
observances of religion confounded for a long
period (insomuch that the diversity of judgment
in regard to the time for celebrating one and
the same feast caused the greatest disagreement
between those who kept it, some afflicting them-
selves with fastings and austerities, while others
devoted their time to festive relaxation), no one
appeared who was capable of devising a remedy
for the evil, because the controversy continued
e(]ually balanced between both parties. To God
alone, the Almighty, was the healing of these
differences an easy task ; and Constantine ap-
peared to be the only one on earth capable of
being his minister for this good end. For as
soon as he was made acquainted with the facts
which I have described, and perceived that his
letter to the Alexandrian Christians had failed
to produce its due effect, he at once aroused
the energies of his mind, and declared that he
must prosecute to the utmost this war also
against the secret adversary who was disturbing
the peace of the Church.
CHAPTER VL
Hoiv he ordered a Council to be held at Niccca.
Then as if to bring a divine array against this
enemy, he convoked a general council, and
invited the speedy attendance of bishops from
all quarters, in letters expressive of the honora-
ble estimation in which he held them. Nor
was this merely the issuing of a bare command,
but the emperor's good will contributed much
to its being carried into effect : for he allowed
some the use of the public means of conveyance,
while he afforded to others an ample supply of
horses ^ for their transport. The place, too,
selected for the synod, the city Niceea in Bithy-
nia (named from ^^ Victory''), was appropriate
to the occasion.- As soon then as the imperial
injunction was generally made known, all with
1 For endless literature of the Paschal controversy, compare
articles in all the religious encyclopaedias, especially perhaps Steitz,
in the Schaff-Herzog; and for history and discussion of the question
itself, see Hensley's art. Easter, in Smith and Cheetham, Diet.
- By some this phrase is joined to the preceding paragraph, —
strangers . . . " in this as in other respects," and so Bag. trans-
lates, but the division followed here is that o{ Hein.
1 " Beasts of burden."
2 The probably apocryphal version of the summoning letter
given by Cowper {Syr. Misc.) from the Syriac gives the reason
of the choice of Nicsea, "the excellent temperature of the air"
there.
the utmost willingness hastened thither, as though
they would outstrip one another in a race ; for
they were impelled by the anticipation of a
happy result to the conference, by the hope of
enjoying present peace, and the desire of be-
holding something new and strange in the per-
son of so admirable an emperor. Now when
they were all assembled, it appeared evident that
the proceeding was the work of God, inasmuch
as men who had been most widely separated,
not merely in sentiment, but also personally,
and by difference of country, place, and nation,
were here brought together, and comprised
within the walls of a single city, forming as it
were a vast garland of priests, composed of a
variety of the choicest flowers.
CHAPTER VH.
Of the General Council, at whicJi Bishops from
all Nations were Present}
In effect, the most distinguished of God's
ministers from all the churches which abounded
in Europe, Lybia,- and Asia were here assem-
bled. And a single house of prayer, as though
divinely enlarged, sufficed to contain at once
Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabians,
delegates from Palestine, and others from Egypt ;
Thebans and Libyans, with those who came
from the region of Mesopotamia. A Persian
bishop too was present at this conference, nor
was even a Scythian found wanting to the num-
ber.^ Pontus, Galatia, and Pamphylia, Cappa-
docia, Asia, and Phrygia, furnished their most
distinguished prelates ; while those who dwelt
in the remotest districts of Thrace and Mace-
donia, of xAchaia and Epirus, were notwithstand-
ing in attendance. Even from Spain itself, one
whose fame was widely spread took his seat as
an individual in the great assembly.'* The prel-
ate of the imperial city^ was prevented from
attending by extreme old age ; but his presby-
ters were present, and supplied his place.* Con-
stantine is the first prince of any age who bound
together such a garland as this with the bond
of peace, and presented it to his Saviour as a
thank-offering for the victories he had obtained
over every foe, thus exhibiting in our own times
a similitude of the apostolic company.
1 The standard work on councils is Hefele, Conciliengeschickte,
available to the English reader in the translation of Clark, Oxen-
ham, &c. (Edinb. 1872 sq.), a work so thoroughly fundamental that
a general reference to it will serve as one continuous note to matters
relating to the councils held under Constantine.
- ^ Africa.
3 It is noted that this evidence of the presence of foreign bishops
— "missionary bishops," so to speak — is confirmed by Gelasius
and also by the roll of the members.
* [Hosius of Cordova. — Bag.'\
■'■' [It has been doubted whether Rome or Constantinople is here
intended. The authority of Sozomen and others is in favor of the
former. See English translation, published as one volume of this
series. — Bag.^ Also in this series.
522
CONSTANTINE.
[III. s.
CHAPTER VIII.
That tlic Assembly was composed, as in the Acts
of the Apostles, of Individuals from Various
Nations.
For it is said ^ that in the Apostles' age, there
were gathered " devout men from every nation
under heaven " ; among whom were Parthians,
and Medes, and Ehimites, and the dwellers in
Mesopotamia, in Judea, and Cappadocia, in
Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia,
in Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene ;
and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and prose-
lytes, Cretans and Arabians. But that assembly
was less, in that not all who composed it were
ministers of God ; but in tlie present company,
the number of bishops exceeded two hundred
and fifty,- while that of the presbyters and dea-
cons in their train, and the crowd of acolytes
and other attendants was altogether beyond
computation.
CHAPTER IX.
Of tiie Virtue and ^li^e of the Ttvo Hundred and
Fifty Bishops.
Of these ministers of God, some were dis-
tinguished by wisdom and eloquence, others by
the gravity of their lives, and by patient fortitude
of character, while others again united in them-
selves all these graces.^ There were among
them men whose years demanded veneration :
others were younger, and in the prime of mental
vigor ; and some had but recently entered on
the course of their ministry. For the mainte-
nance of all ample pro\'ision was daily furnished
by the emperor's command.
CHAPTER X.
Council in the Palace. Constantine, cnterin<^,
took his Seat in the Assembly.
Now when the appointed day arrived on
which the council met fur the final solution of
the questions in dispute, each member was
present for this in the central building of the
palace,' which appeared to exceed the rest in
' Acts ii. 5 sqq.
- The number present is given variously as tlirec hundred (Soc-
rates), three hundred and ei;;hteen (Athanasius, &c.), two hundred
and seventy (Theodoret), or even two thousand (cf. Hcfcle). It
has been conjectured that the variation came from the omission of
names of the Arians (cf. note of Heinichen, Vol. 3, p. 506-507), or
that it varied during the two months and more.
' This is the way it is interpreted by Sozomen, i, 17. The
phrase, which is literally " of midrllinc; character," is translated by
Molz. and others as if it meant " mild " or " modest," as if it referred
in some way to the doctrine of the mean.
' [Hence it seems probable that this was the last day of the
Council; the entire session of which occupied more than two
magnitude. On each side of the interior of this
were many seats disposed in order, which were
occupied by those who had been invited to
attend, according to their rank. As soon, then,
as the whole assembly had seated themselves
with becoming orderliness, a general silence
prevailed, in expectation of the emperor's arri-
val. And first of all, three of his immediate
family entered in succession, then others also
preceded his approach, not of the soldiers or
guards who usually accompanied him, but only
friends in the faith. And now, all rising at the
signal which indicated the emperor's entrance,
at last he himself proceeded through the midst
of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger
of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it
were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing
radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with
the brilliant splendor of gold and precious
stones. Such was the external appearance of
his person ; and with regard to his mind, it was
evident that he was distinguished by piety and
godly fear. This was indicated by his down-
cast eyes, the blush on his countenance, and his
gait. For the rest of his personal excellencies,
he surpassed all present in height of stature and
beauty of form, as well as in majestic dignity
of mien, and invincible strength and vigor. All
these graces, united to a suavity of manner, and
a serenity becoming his imperial station, de-
clared the excellence of his mental qualities to
be above all praise.^ As soon as he had ad-
vanced to the upper end of the seats, at first
he remained standing, and when a low chair cf
wrought gold had been set for him, he waited
until the bishops had beckoned to him, and
then sat down, and after him the whole assem-
bly did the same.
CHAPTER XI.
Silence of the Council, after Some Jl'o/ds by the
the Bishop Eusebius.
The bishop who occupied the chief place in
the right division of the assembly^ then rose,
and, adtlressing the emperor, delivered a con-
cise speech, in a strain of thanksgiving to Al-
mighty God on his behalf. When he had
resumed his scat, silence ensued, and all re-
garded the emperor with fixed attention ; on
which he looked serenely round on the assem-
bly with a cheerful aspect, and, having collected
his thoughts, in a calm and gentle tone gave
utterance to the following words.
months, and which was orisinally held in a church. — Bag."] The
exact dates of the Council arc controverted, but it seems that it
ended August 25, having probably begun June 14.
- Compare Prolegomena, under Physical and Mental Charac-
teristics.
' [The authority of Sozomcn and other writers seems to decide
that this was Eusebius himself. — liasS\
I[[. 15.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
523
CHAFI^ER XII.
Cons hill tine's Address to the Council concerning
Peace}
" It was once my chief desire, dearest friends,
to enjoy the spe<-t;icle of your united presence ;
and now that this tlesire is fulfilled, I feel my-
self bound to render thanks to God the universal
King, because, in addition to all his other bene-
fits, he has granted me a blessing higher than
all the rest, in ])ermitting me to see you not
only all assembled together, but all united in a
common harmony of sentiment. I pray there-
fore that no malignant adversary may henceforth
interfere to mar our happy state ; I pray that,
now the impious hostility of the tyrants has been
forever removed by the power of God our
Saviour, tliat spirit who delights in evil may
devise no other means for exposing the divine
law to blasphemous calumny; for, in my judg-
ment,* intestine strife within the Church of God
is far more evil and dangerous than any kind
of war or conflict ;' and these our differences
appear to me more grievous than any outward
trouble. Accordingly, when, by the will and
with the co-operation of God, I had been vic-
torious over my enemies, I thought that nothing
more remained but to render thanks to him,
and sympathize in the joy of those whom he
had restored to freedom through my instrumen-
tality ; as soon as I heard that intelligence which
I had least expected to receive, I mean the
news of your dissension, I judged it to be of no
secondary importance, but with the earnest de-
sire that a remedy for this evil also might be
found through my means, I immediately sent
to require your presence. And now I rejoice
in beholding your assembly ; but I feel that my
desires will be most completely fulfilled when I
can see you all united in one judgment, and
that common spirit of peace and concord pre-
vailing amongst you all, which it becomes you,
as consecrated to the service of God, to com-
mend to others. Delay not, then, dear friends :
delay not, ye ministers of God, and faithful ser-
vants of him who is our common Lord and
Saviour : begin from this moment to discard
the causes of that disunion which has existed
among you, and remove the perplexities of con-
troversy by embracing the principles of peace.
For by such conduct you will at the same time
be acting in a manner most pleasing to the
supreme Gci, and you will confer an exceeding
favor on me who am your fellow-servant."
■ The earnest desire of Constantine to promote peace in the
church makes one judge with leniency the rather arbitrary and very
mechanical method he often took to secure it. As over against the
unity of form or the unity of compromise, there is one only real
unity — a unity in the truth, being one in the Truth. The secret of
peace is reason with right.
CHAPTER XIIL
How lie led the Dissentient Bishops to Har-
mony of Sentiment.
As soon as the emperor had spoken these
words in the Latin tongue, which another in-
terpreted, he gave permission to those who
presided in the council to deliver their opinions.
On this some began to accuse their neighbors,
who defended themselves, and recriminated in
their turn. In this manner numberless asser-
tions were put forth by each party, and a violent
controversy arose at the very commencement.
Notwithstanding this, the emperor gave patient
audience to all alike, and received every propo-
sition with steadfast attention, and by occasion-
ally assisting the argument of each party in turn,
he gradually disposed even the most vehement
disputants to a reconciliation. At the same
time, by the affability of his address to all, and
his use of the Greek language, with which he
was not altogether unacquainted, he appeared
in a truly attractive and amiable light, persuad-
ing some, convincing others by his reasonings,
praising those who spoke well, and urging all to
unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in
bringing them to one mind and judgment re-
specting every disputed question.
CHAPTER XIV.
Unanimous Declaration of the Council concern-
ing Faith, and the Celebration of Easter.
,The result was that they were not only united
as concerning the faith, but that the time for
the celebration of the salutary feast of Easter
was agreed on by all. • Those points also which
were sanctioned by the resolution of the whole
body were committed to writing, and received
the signature of each several member.^ Then
the emperor, believing that he had thus ob-
tained a second victory over the adversary of
the Church, proceeded to solemnize a triumphal
festival in honor of God.
CHAPTER XV.
How Constantine entertaitted the Bishops on the
Occasion of his Vicennalia.
About this time he completed the twentieth
year of his reign.' On this occasion public
festivals were celebrated by the people of the
provinces generally, but the emperor himself
invited and feasted with those ministers of Ciod
1 The e.xtant signatures are of doubtful authenticity. Compare
Hefele, p. 269.
1 Compare Prolegomena, Lije.
524
CONSTANTINE.
[III. 15.
whom he had reconciled, and thus offered as it
were through them a suitable sacrifice to God.
Not one of the bishops was wanting at the im-
perial banquet,- the circumstances of which were
splendid beyond description. Detachments of
the body-guard and other troops surrounded
the entrance of the palace with drawn swords,
and through the midst of these the men of God
proceeded without fear into the innermost of the
imperial apartments, in which some were the
emperor's own companions at table, while others
reclined on couches arranged on either side.^
One might have thought that a picture of
Christ's kingdom was thus shadowed forth, and
a dream rather than reality.
CHAPTER XVI.
Presents to the Bishops, and Letters to the People
generally.
After the celebration of this brilliant festival,
the emperor courteously received all his guests,
and generously added to the favors he had
already bestowed by personally presenting gifts
to each individual according to his rank. He
also gave information of the proceedings of the
synod to those who had not been ])resent, by a
letter in his own hand-writing. And this letter
also I will inscribe as it were on some monu-
ment by inserting it in this my narrative of his
life. It was as follows :
CHAPTER XVII.
Coustantine's Letter to the Churches respecting
the Council at Niccca.
" CoNSTANTiNUS AUGUSTUS, to the Churches.
" Having had full proof, in the general pros-
perity of the empire, how great the favor of God
has been towards us, I have judged that it ought
to be the first object of my endeavors, that unity
of faith, sincerity of love, and community of feel-
ing in regard to the worship of Almighty God,
might be preserved among the highly favored
multitude who compose the Catholic Church.
And, inasmuch as this object could not be effect-
ually and certainly secured, unless all, or at
least the greater number of the bishops were
to meet together, and a discussion of all partic-
ulars relating to our most holy religion to take
place ; for this reason as numerous an assembly
as possible has been convened, at which I myself
2 At the risk of seeming trivial in sober and professedly con-
densed annotation, one cannot liclp noting that the human nature of
ancient and modern councils is the same, — much controversy and
more or less absenteeism, but all present at dinner.
■' For notice of these couches, sec Smith, Did. Gr. and Rom.
Ant., article Lectica.
was present, as one among yourselves (and far
be it from me to deny that which is my greatest
joy, that I am your fellow-servant), and every
(juestion received due and full examination,
until that judgment which God, who sees all
things, could approve, and which tended to
unity and concord, was brought to light, so that
no room was left for further discussion or con-
troversy in relation to the faith.
CHAPTER XVIII.
He speaks of their Unanimity respecting the
Feast of Easter, and against the Practice of
the Jews.
" At this meeting the question concerning the
most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it
was resolved by the united judgment of all pres-
ent, that this feast ought to be kept by all and
in every place on one and the same day. For
what can be more becoming or honorable to us
than that this feast from which we date our hopes
of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by
all alike, according to one ascertained order and
arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an
unworthy thing that in the celebration of this
most holy feast we should follow the practice of
the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands
with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly
afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have
it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to
prolong the due observance of this ordinance
to future ages, by a truer order, which we have
preserved from the very day of the passion
until the present time. Let us then have noth-
ing in common with the detestable Jewish
crowd ; for we have received from our Saviour
a different way. A course at once legitimate
and honorable lies open to our most holy relig-
ion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent
adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from
all participation in their baseness.* For their
boast is absurd indeed, that it is not in our power
without instruction from them to observe these
things. For how should they be capable of
forming a sound judgment, who, since their par-
ricidal guilt in slaying their Lord, have been
subject to the direction, not of reason, but of
ungoverned passion, and are swayed by every
impulse of the mad spirit that is in them?
Hence it is that on this point as well as others
they have no perception of the tr"th, so that,
being altogether ignorant of the true adjust-
ment of this question, they sometimes celebrate
1 [The idea seems to be (as explained by Valesius) that if they
joined the Jews in celebrating this feast, they would seem to con-
sent to their crime in crucifying the Lord. — -^^jf-]. He carried out
his reprobation of the Jews in his actions in discriminating laws at
least, and perhaps in actual persecution.
III. 21.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
525
Easter twice in the same year. Why then should
we follow those who are confessedly in grievous
error? Surely we shall never consent to keep
this feast a second time in the same year. Uut
supposing these reasons were not of sufficient
weight, still it would be incumbent on your Sa-
gacities - to strive and pray continually that the
purity of your souls may not seem in anything
to be sullied by fellowship with the customs of
these most wicked men. We must consider,
too, that a discordant judgment in a case of
such importance, and respecting such religious
festival, is wrong. For our Saviour has left us
one feast in commemoration of the day of our
deliverance, I mean the day of his most holy
passion ; and he has willed that his Catholic
Church should be one, the members of which,
however scattered in many and diverse places,
are yet cherished by one pervading spirit, that
is, by the will of God. And let your Holinesses'
sagacity reflect how grievous and scandalous it
is that on the self-same days some should be
engaged in fasting, others in festive enjoyment ;
and again, that after the days of Easter some
should be present at banquets and amusements,
while others are fulfilling the appointed fasts.
It is, then, plainly the will of Divine Providence
(as I suppose you all clearly see), that this usage
should receive fitting correction, and be reduced
to one uniform rule.
CHAPTER XIX.
Exhoi'tation to follow the Example of the
Greatci- Part of the World.
" Since, therefore, it was needful that this
matter should be rectified, so that we might
have nothing in common with that nation of
parricides who slew their Lord : and since that
arrangement is consistent with propriety which
is observed by all the churches of the western,
southern, and northern parts of the world, and
by some of the eastern also : for these reasons
all are unanimous on this present occasion in
thinking it worthy of adoption. And I myself
have undertaken that this decision should meet
with the approval of your Sagacities,^ in the
hope that your Wisdoms ^ will gladly admit that
practice which is observed at once in the city
of Rome, and in Africa ; throughout Italy, and
in Egypt, in Spain, the Gauls, Britain, Libya, and
the whole of Greece ; in the dioceses of Asia
and Pontus, and in Cilicia, with entire unity of
2 ['A-j/x'f'oii. This word is one of a class of expressions fre-
quently used by Eusebius, and which, being intended as titles of
honor, like " Excellency," &c., should, where possible, be thus
rendered. In the present instance it is applied to the heads of the
churches collectively. — Bag.^ More probably in this case it is not
the title, but means " your sagacity."
• Rather " sagacity " and " wisdom."
judgment. And you will consider not only that
the number of churches is far greater in the
regions I have enumerated than in any other,
but also that it is most fitting that all should
unite in desiring that which sound reason ap-
pears to demancl, and in avoiding all participa-
tion in the perjured conduct of the Jews.- In
fine, that I may express my meaning in as few
words as possible, it has been determined by
the common judgment of all, that the most holy
feast of Easter should be kept on one and the
same day. For on the one hand a discrepancy
of opinion on so sacred a question is unbecom-
ing, and on the other it is surely best to act on
a decision which is free from strange folly and
error.
CHAPTER XX.
Exhortation to obey the Decrees of the Cotmcil.
" Receive, then, with all willingness this truly
Divine injunction, and regard it as in truth the
gift of God. For whatever is determined in the
holy assemblies of the bishops is to be regarded
as indicative of the Divine will. As soon, there-
fore, as you have communicated these proceed-
ings to all our beloved brethren, you are bound
from that time forward to adopt for yourselves,
and to enjoin on others the arrangement above
mentioned, and the due observance of this most
sacred day ; that whenever I come into the
presence of your love, which I have long de-
sired, I may have it in my power to celebrate
the holy feast with you on the same day, and
may rejoice with you on all accounts, when I
behold the cruel power of Satan removed by
Divine aid through the agency of our endeavors,
while your faith, and peace, and concord every-
where flourish. God preserve you, beloved
brethren ! "
The emperor transmitted a faithful copy ' of
this letter to every province, wherein they who
read it might discern as in a mirror the pure
sincerity of his thoughts, and of his piety toward
God.
CHAPTER XXI.
Reeoinmendation to the Bishops, on their Depar-
ture, to Presence Harmony.
And now, when the council was on the point
of being finally dissolved, he summoned all the
bishops to meet him on an appointed day, and
on their arrival addressed them in a farewell
^ [Valesius explains this as referring to the conduct of the Jews
in professing to acknowledge God as their king, and yet denying
him by saying, " We have no king but Csesar." — Bag.\
' This Hcin. regards as the correct meaning, although " equally
valid," or " authoritative," has been regarded as possible.
526
CONSTANTINE.
[III. 21.
speech, in which he recommended them to be
diUgent in the maintenance of peace, to avoid
contentious disputations, amongst themselves,
and not to be jealous, if any one of their number
should appear pre-eminent for wisdom and elo-
quence, but to esteem the excellence of one a
blessing common to all. On the other hand he
reminded them that the more gifted should for-
bear to exalt themselves to the prejudice of
their humbler brethren, since it is God's pre-
rogative to judge of real superiority. Rather
should they considerately condescend to the
weaker, remembering that absolute perfection
in any case is a rare quality indeed. Each,
then, should be willing to accord indulgence to
the other for slight offenses, to regard charitably
and pass over mere human weaknesses ; holding
mutual harmony in the highest honor, that no
occasion of mockery might be given by their
dissensions to those who are ever ready to
blaspheme the word of God : whom indeed we
should do all in our power to save, and this
cannot be unless our conduct seems to them
attractive. But you are well aware of the fact,
that testimony is by no means productive of
blessing to all, since some who hear are glad to
secure the supply of their mere bodily neces-
sities, while others court the patronage of their
superiors ; some fix their affection on those who
treat them with hospitable kindness, others
again, being honored with presents, love their
benefactors in return ; but few are they who
really desire the word of testimony, and rare
indeed is it to find a friend of truth. Hence
the necessity of endeavoring to meet the case
of all, and, physician-like, to administer to each
that which may tend to the health of the soul,
to the end that the saving doctrine may be fully
honored by all. Of this kind was the former
part of his exhortation ; ^ and in conclusion he
enjoined them to offer diligent supplications to
God on his behalf. Having thus taken leave of
them, he gave them all permission to return to
their respective countries ; and this they did
with joy, and thenceforward that unity of judg-
ment at which they had arrived in the emperor's
]:)resence continued to prevail, and those who
had long been divided were bound together as
members of the same body.
CHAPTER XXH.
How lie dismissed Some, and 7urofe LeiicfS to
Others ; also his Presents.
Full of joy therefore at this success, the
emperor presented as it were pleasant fruits in
' Or " such were the injunctions which the emperor laid espe-
cially on their consciences."
the way of letters to those who had not been
present at the council. He commanded also
that ample gifts of money should be bestowed
on all the people, both in the country and the
cities, being ])leased thus to honor the festive
occasion of the twentieth anniversary of his
reign.
CHAPTER XXHI.
How he wrote to the Egyptians, exhorting them
to Peace.
And now, when all else were at peace, among
the Egyptians alone an implacable contention
still raged,^ so as once more to disturb the
emperor's tranquillity, though not to excite his
anger. For indeed he treated the contend-
ing parties with all respect, as fathers, nay rather,
as prophets of God ; and again he summoned
them to his presence, and again patiently acted
as mediator between them, and honored them
with gifts, and communicated also the result of
his arbitration by letter. He confirmed and
sanctioned the decrees of the council, and
called on them to strive earnestly for concord,
and not to distract and rend the Church, but
to keep before them the thought of God's judg-
ment. And these injunctions the emperor sent
by a letter written with his own hand.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Hotv he wrote Frequent Letters of a Religious
Chai-acter to the Bishops and People.
But besides these, his writings are very numer-
ous on kindred subjects, and he was the author
of a multitude of letters, some to the bishops,
in which he laid injunctions on them tending
to the advantage of the churches of God ; and
sometimes the thrice blessed one addressed the
people of the churches generally, calling them
his own brethren and fellow-servants. But per-
haps we may hcrcaflcr find leisure to collect
these despatches in a separate form, in order
that the integrity of our present history may
not be impaired by their insertion.
CHAPTER XXV.
Ho7U he ordered the Eirction of a Church at
Jerusalem, in the Holy Place of our Saviou?''s
Resurrection.
Anr.R these things, the pious emperor ad-
dressed himself to another work truly worthy
of record, in the ])rovince of Palestine. What
' Continuation of the Arian controversy.
III. 28.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
527
then was this work ? - He judged it incumbent
on him to render the blessed locahty of our
Saviour's resurrection an object of attraction
and veneration to all. He issued immediate
injunctions, therefore, for the erection in that
spot of a house of prayer : and this he did, not
on the mere natural impulse of his own mind,
but being moved in spirit by the Saviour himself.-
CHAPTER XXVI.
That the Holy Sepulchre had been covered with
Rubbish and with Idols by the Ungodly.
For it had been in time past the endeavor of
impious men (or rather let me say of the whole
race of evil spirits through their means), to con-
sign to the darkness of oblivion that divine mon-
ument of immortahty to which the radiant angel
had descended from heaven, and rolled away
the stone for those who still had stony hearts,
and who supposed that the living One still lay
among the dead ; and had declared glad tidings
to the women also, and removed their stony-
hearted unbelief by the conviction that he whom
they sought was alive. This sacred cave, then,
certain impious and godless persons had thought
to remove entirely from the eyes of men, sup-
posing in their folly that thus they should be
able effectually to obscure the truth. Accord-
ingly they brought a quantity of earth from
a distance with much labor, and covered the
entire spot ; then, having raised this to a moder-
ate height, they paved it with stone, concealing
the holy cave beneath this massive mound.
Then, as though their purpose had been effect-
ually accomplished, they prepare on this founda-
tion a truly dreadful sepulchre of souls, by
building a gloomy shrine of lifeless idols to the
impure spirit whom they call Venus, and offer-
ing detestable oblations therein on profane and
accursed altars. For they supposed that their
object could not otherwise be fully attained,
than by thus burying the sacred cave beneath
these foul pollutions. Unhappy men ! they
were unable to comprehend how impossible it
was that their attempt should remain unknown
to him who had been crowned with victory over
death, any more than the blazing sun, when he
rises above the earth, and holds his wonted
course through the midst of heaven, is unseen
by the whole race of mankind. Indeed, his
saving power, shining with still greater bright-
ness, and illumining, not the bodies, but the
souls of men, was already filling the world with
the effulgence of its own hght. Nevertheless,
these devices of impious and wicked men against
the truth had prevailed for a long time, nor had
any one of the governors, or military command-
ers, or even of the emperors themselves ever
yet appeared, with ability to abolish these daring
impieties, save only that one who enjoyed the
favor of the King of kings. And now, acting
as he did under the guidance of the divine
Spirit, he could not consent to see the sacred
spot of which we have sj^oken, thus buried,
through the devices of the adversaries, under
every kind of impurity, and abandoned to for-
getfulness and neglect ; nor would he yield to
the malice of those who had contracted this
guilt, but calling on the divine aid, gave orders
that the place should be thoroughly purified,
thinking that the parts which had been most
polluted by the enemy ought to receive special
tokens, through his means, of the greatness of
the divine favor. As soon, then, as his com-
mands were issued, these engines of deceit were
cast down from their proud eminence to the
very ground, and the dwelling-places of error,
with the statues and the evil spirits which they
represented, were overthrown and utterly de-
stroyed.
CHAPTER XXVn.
How Consta7itine commanded the Materials of
the Idol Temple, and the Soil itself, to be re-
moved at a Distance.
Nor did the emperor's zeal stop here ; but
he gave further orders that the materials of what
was thus destroyed, both stone and timber,
should be removed and thrown as far from the
spot as possible ; and this command also was
speedily executed. The emperor, however, was
not satisfied with having proceeded thus for :
once more, fired with holy ardor, he directed
that the ground itself should be dug up to a
considerable depth, and the soil which had been
polluted by the foul impurities of demon wor-
ship transported to a far distant place.
CHAPTER XXVHL
Discovery of the Most Holy Sepulchre}
This also was accomplished without delay.
But as soon as the original surface of the ground,
beneath the covering of earth, appeared, im-
mediately, and contrary to all expectation, the
venerable and hallowed monument of our Sav-
iour's resurrection was discovered. Then indeed
did this most holy cave present a faithful simili-
' On the site of the sepulchre, compare Besant, Scpiilchri\
the Holy,\x\ Smith and Cheetham, 2 (1880), 1SS1-1888. He dis-
cusses {a) Is the present site that fixed upon by the ofTicers of Con-
stantine? and (i) Was that site certainly or even probably iho true
spot where our Lord was buried 'i Compare also reports of the
Palestine Exploration Fund Survey, Jerusalem, 1884, p. 429-435
(Conder),
528
CONSTANTINE.
[III. 28.
tude of his return to life, in that, after lying
buried in darkness, it again emerged to light,
and afforded to all who came to witness the
sight, a clear and visible proof of the wonders
of which that spot had once been the scene, a
testimony to the resurrection of the Saviour
clearer than any voice could give.
CHAPTER XXIX.
Hoio he wrote concerning the Erection of a
Church, both to the Governors of the Pro7'-
inces, and to the Bishop Macariiis.
Immediately after the transactions I have
recorded, the emperor sent forth injunctions
which breathed a truly pious spirit, at the same
time granting ample supplies of money, and
commanding that a house of prayer worthy of
the worship of God should be erected near the
Saviour's tomb on a scale of rich and royal
greatness. This object he had indeed for some
time kept in view, and had foreseen, as if by
the aid of a superior intelligence, that which
should afterwards come to pass. He laid his
commands, therefore, on the governors of the
Eastern provinces, that by an abundant and un-
sparing expenditure they should secure the
completion of the work on a scale of noble and
ample magnificence. He also despatched the
following letter to the bishop who at that time
presided over the church at Jerusalem, in which
he clearly asserted the saving doctrine of the
faith, writing in these terms.
CHAPTER XXX.
Constantine's Letter to Macarius respecting the
Building of the Church of our Saviour.
" Victor Constantius, Maximus Augustus, to
Macarius.
" Such is our Saviour's grace, that no power
of language seems adequate to describe the
wondrous circumstance to which I am about to
refer. For, that the monument of his most
holy Passion, so long ago buried beneath the
ground, should have remained unknown for so
long a series of years, until its reappearance to
his servants now set free through the removal
of him ' who was the common enemy of all, is
a fact which truly surpasses all admiration. For
if all who are accounted wise throughout the
world were to unite in their endeavors to say
somewhat worthy of this event, they would be
unable to attain their object in the smallest
degree. Indeed, the nature of this miracle as
far transcends the capacity of human reason as
* [Liciniiis appears to be meant, whose death had occurred a.d.
326, in which yc.Tr the alleged discovery of the Lord's sepulchre
took place. — Bag.\
heavenly things are superior to human affairs.
For this cause it is ever my first, and indeed
my only object, that, as the authority of the
truth is evincing itself daily by fresh wonders,
so our souls may all become more zealous, with
all sobriety and earnest unanimity, for the honor
of the Divine law. I desire, therefore, especially,
that you should be persuaded of that which I
suppose is evident to all beside, namely, that I
have no greater care than how I may best adorn
with a splendid structure that sacred spot, which,
under Divine direction, I have disencumbered
as it were of the heavy weight of foul idol
worship ; a spot which has been accounted holy
from the beginning in God's judgment, but
which now appears holier still, since it has
brought to light a clear assurance of our Sav-
iour's passion.
CHAPTER XXXI.
That the Buihiiug should surpass all the
Churches in the World in thr Bca^'ty of its
IJ'alls, its Columns, and Afarbles.
" It will be well, therefore, for your sagacity
to make such arrangements and provision of all
things needful for the work, that not only the
church itself as a whole may surpass all others
whatsoever in beauty, but that the details of the
building may be of such a kind that the fairest
structures in any city of the empire may be ex-
celled by this. And with respect to the erection
and decoration of the walls, this is to inform you
that our friend Dracilianus, the deputy of the
Pr?etorian Prgefects, and the governor of the
province, have received a charge from us. For
our pious directions to them are to the effect
that artificers and laborers, and whatever they
shall understand from your sagacity to be need-
ful for the advancement of the work, shall forth-
with be furnished by their care. And as to the
columns and marbles, whatever you shall judge,
after actual inspection of the plan, to be espe-
cially precious and serviceable, be diligent to
send information to us in writing, in order that
whatever quantity or sort of materials we shall
esteem from your letter to be needful, may be
procured from every quarter, as required, for it
is fitting that the most mar\'elous place in the
world should be worthily decorated.
CHAPTER XXXII.
That he instructed the Governors concerning the
Beautifying of the Roof; also concerning the
Workmen, and Materials.
"With respect to the ceiling^ of the church,
• The word used is the technical " camera," meaning properly a
III. 37-]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
529
I wish to know from you whether in your judg-
ment it should be panel-ceiled/ or finished with
any other kind of workmanship. If the panel
ceiling be adopted, it may also be ornamented
with gold. For the rest, your Holiness will give
information as early as possible to the before-
mentioned magistrates how many laborers and
artificers, and what expenditure of money is
required. You will also be careful to send us a
report without delay, not only respecting the
marbles and columns, but the paneled ceiling
also, should this appear to you to be the most
beautiful form, God presen'e you, beloved
brother ! "
CHAPTER XXXni,
How the Church of our Saviour, the New Jeru-
salem prophesied of in Scripture, was built.
This was the emperor's letter ; and his direc-
tions were at once carried into effect. Accord-
ingly, »on the very spot which witnessed the
Saviour's sufferings, a new Jerusalem was con-
structed, over against the one so celebrated of
old, which, since the foul stain of guilt brought
on it by the murder of the Lord, had experi-
enced the last extremity of desolation, the effect
of Divine judgment on its impious people." It
was opposite this city that the emperor now
began to rear a monument to the Saviour's vic-
tory over death, with rich and lavish magnifi-
cence. And it may be that this was that second
and new Jemsalem spoken of in the predictions
of the prophets,^ concerning which such abun-
dant testimony is given in the divinely inspired
records.
First of all, then, he adorned the sacred cave
itself, as the chief part of the whole work, and
the hallowed monument at which the angel
radiant with light had once declared to all that
regeneration which was first manifested in the
Saviour's person.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
Description of the Structure of the Holy Sepul-
chre.
This monument, therefore, first of all, as the
chief part of the whole, the emperor's zealous
certain style of vaulted ceiling, but here it is perhaps the generic
ceiling if the specific word below means panel ceiling.
- This is the word for the Lacunaria or panel ceilings, a style of
ceiling where " planks were placed across these beams at certain
intervals leaving hollow spaces," " which were frequently covered
with gold and ivory, and sometimes with paintings." Compare
article Domus, in Smith, Diet. Gr. and Rom. Ant. The passage
may mean either " with respect to the ceiling . . . whether . . .
wainscoted" or "with respect to the Camera . . . whether panel
ceiled."
' [Apparently referring (says Valesius) to Rev. xxi. 2: "And
I, John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God,
magnificence beautified with rare columns, and
profusely enriched with the most splendid deco'
rations of every kind.
CHAPTER XXXV.
Description of the Atriicm and Porticos.
The next object of his attention was a space
of ground of great extent, and open to the pure
air of heaven. This he adorned with a pave-
ment of finely polished stone, and enclosed it on
three sides with porticos of great length.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Description of the 1 Vails, Roof, Decoration, and
Gilditig of the Body of the Church.
For at the side opposite to the cave, which
was the eastern side, the church itself was
erected ; a noble work rising to a vast height,
and of great extent both in length and breadth.
The interior of this structure was floored with
marble slabs of various colors ; while the exter-
nal surface of the walls, which shone with pol-
ished stones exactly fitted together, exhibited a
degree of splendor in no respect inferior to that
of marble. With regard to the roof, it was
covered on the outside with lead, as a protec-
tion against the rains of winter. But the inner
part of the roof, which was finished with sculp-
tured panel work, extended in a series of con-
nected compartments, like a vast sea, over the
whole church ; ^ and, being overlaid throughout
with the purest gold, caused the entire building
to glitter as it were with rays of light.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
Desc7-iption of the Double Porticos on Either
Side, and of the Three Eastern Gates.
Besides this were two porticos on each side,
with upper and lower ranges of pillars,^ corre-
sponding in length with the church itself; and
these also had their roofs ornamented with gold.
Of these porticos, those which were exterior to
the church were supported by columns of great
size, while those within these rested on piles ^ of
out of heaven," &c.; an extraordinary, nay, almost ludicrous appli-
cation of Scripture, though perhaps characteristic of the author's
age. — Z?rt^.] And it may be said characteristic of Eusebius him-
self, for it is not his only sin in this regard.
^ It would seem from this description that the paneling was like
that of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome, a horizontal surface rather
than the pointed roof paneled.
' Whether this means two series, one underground and one
above (Molz. and many), or not, is fully discussed by Heinichen in
a separate note {Eusebius, vol. 3, p. 520-521).
- [These inner porticos seem to have rested on massy piles,
because they adjoined the sides of the church, and had to bear its
VOL. I.
M m
530
CONSTANTINE.
Oin. 37.
stone beautifully adorned on the surface. Three
gates, placed exactly east, were intended to re-
ceive the multitudes who entered the church.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
Descriptioti of the Hemisphere, the Twelve Col-
u?niis, and their Bowls,
Opposite these gates the crowning part of the
whole was the hemisphere,' which rose to the
very summit of the church. This was encircled
by twelve columns (according to the number of
the apostles of our Saviour), having their capitals
embellished with silver bowls of great size, which
the emperor himself presented as a splendid
offering to his God.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
Description of the Inner Cou?-f, the Arcades,
and Porches.
In the next place he enclosed the atrium,
which occupied the space leading to the en-
trances in front of the church. This compre-
hended, first the court, then the porticos on
each side, and lastly the gates of the court. Af-
ter these, in the midst of the open market-place,'
the general entrance-gates, which were of exqui-
site workmanship, afforded to passers-by on the
outside a view of the interior which could not
fail to inspire astonishment.
CHAPTER XL.
Of the Number of his Offerings.
This temple, then, the emperor erected as a
conspicuous monument of the Saviour's resur-
rection, and embellished it throughout on an
imperial scale of magnificence. He further
enriched it with numberless offerings of inex-
pressible beauty and various materials, — gold,
silver, and precious stones, the skillful and elab-
orate arrangement of which, in regard to their
magnitude, number, and variety, we have not
leisure at present to describe particularly.^
roof, which was loftier than any of the rest. — Bng.\ Translated
by Molz. "Quadrangular supports." "In Architecture a cubic
mass of biiildini;, to serve for bearings." — Liddell aud Scott.
* [Apparently, the altar, which was of a hemispherical, or rather
hemicylindrical form. — liig-\ Also a much-discussed question.
Compare Heinichen, vol. 3, p. 521-522.
• [In front of the larger churches there was generally a street,
or open space, where a market was held on the festival of the Mar-
tyr to whom the church was dedicated. Regard was also had, in
this arrangement, to architectural effect, the object being that noth-
ing should interfere with the view of the front of the churcli. Vide
Valesius /;( loc . — Bag.\
' Some idea of various features of this building may be gathered
from the cuts and descriptions of other basilicas in Fergusson, His-
tory pf Architecture, \ (1874), 400 sq.; Liibke, Gescliichte dcr
Architekttir, i (Lpg. 1875), 229 sq.; Langl.'s series of Bildcrzur
Geschichte, &c.
CHAPTER XLI.
Of the Erection of Churxhes in Bethlehem, and
on the Mount of Olives.
In the same country he discovered other
places, venerable as being the localities of two
sacred caves : and these also he adorned with
lavish magnificence. In the one case, he ren-
dered due honor to that which had been the
scene of the first manifestation of our Saviour's
divine presence, when he submitted to be born
in mortal flesh ; while in the case of the second
cavern he hallowed the remembrance of his
ascension to heaven from the mountain top.
And while he thus nobly testified his reverence
for these places, he at the same time eternized
the memory of his mother,' who had been the
instrument of conferring so valuable a benefit
on mankind.
CHAPTER XLII.
That the Empi'ess Helena} Constantine's
Mother, having visited this Locality for De-
votional Putposes, built these Churches.
For she, having resolved to discharge the
duties of pious devotion to the God, the King
of kings, and feeling it incumbent on her to
render thanksgivings with prayers on behalf
both of her own son, now so mighty an emperor,
and of his sons, her own grandchildren, the
divinely favored Caesars, though now advanced
in years, yet gifted with no common degree of
wisdom, had hastened with youthful alacrity to
survey this venerable land ; and at the same
time to visit the eastern provinces, cities, and
people, with a truly imperial solicitude. As
soon, then, as she had rendered due reverence
to the ground which the Saviour's feet had
trodden, according to the prophetic word which
says - " Let us worship at the place whereon his
feet have stood," she immediately bequeathed
the fruit of lier piety to future generations.
CHAPTER XLIII.
A Farther Notice of the Chu7'chcs at Bethlehem.
For without delay she dedicated two churches
to the God whom she adored, one at the grotto
which had been the scene of the Saviour's birth ;
the other on the mount of his ascension. For
' Compare Prolegomena, p. 411.
' Compare Wordswnrlli, lltleiia, in Smith and Wace, Diet. 2
(1880), 881 sq. 'I'hat she was made empress is shown also by the
coins. Cf. coins in Kckhel.
- [Ps. cxxxi. 7. Septuagirtt. — Bag.\ Engl. Vers, cxxxii. 7,
" We will worship at his footstool."
I'
in. 46.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
531
lie wlio was " God with us " had submitted to be
born even in a cave ^ of the earth, and the
place of his nativity was called Bethlehem by
the Hebrews. Accordingly the pious empress
honored with rare memorials the scene of her
travail who bore this heavenly child, and beauti-
fied the sacred cave with all possible splendor.
The emperor himself soon after testified his
reverence for the spot by princely offerings, and
added to his mother's magnificence by costly
presents of silver and gold, and embroidered
hangings. And farther, the mother of the em-
peror raised a stately structure on the Mount of
Olives also, in memory of his ascent to heaven
who is the Saviour of mankind, erecting a sacred
church and temple on the very summit of the
mount. And indeed authentic history informs
us that in this very cave the Saviour imparted
his secret revelations to his disciples.- And
here also the emperor testified his reverence for
the King of kings, by diverse and costly offer-
ings. Thus did Helena Augusta, the pious
mother of a pious emperor, erect over the two
mystic caverns these two noble and beautiful
monuments of devotion, worthy of everlasting
remembrance, to the honor of God her Saviour,
and as proofs of her holy zeal, receiving from
her son the aid of his imperial power. Nor
was it long ere this aged woman reaped the due
reward of her labors. After passing the whole
period of her life, even to declining age, in the
greatest prosperity, and exhibiting both in word
and deed abundant fruits of obedience to the
divine precepts, and having enjoyed in conse-
quence an easy and tranquil existence, with un-
impaired powers of body and mind, at length
she obtained from God an end befitting her
pious course, and a recompense of her good
deeds even in this present Hfe.
CHAPTER XLIV.
Of Helena's Generosity and Beneficent Acts.
For on the occasion of a circuit which she
made of the eastern provinces, in the splendor
of imperial authority, she bestowed abundant
proofs of her liberality as well on the inhabitants
of the several cities collectively, as on individ-
uals who approached her, at the same time that
she scattered largesses among the soldiery with
a liberal hand. But especially abundant were
1 [Literally, beneath the earth. It seems to have been charac-
teristic of the age of Eusebius to invest the more prominent circum-
stances connected with the Lord's life on earth with a degree of
romance and mystery equally inconsistent with Scripture and with
probability. It is obvious that Scripture furnishes no authority for
the cff!'es either of the nativity or ascension. See ch. 41, siiprn. —
>9rto-.] Compare discussion by Andrews, Cave of the Nativity in
his Lif:" nf our Lord ( N. Y.), 77-83.
- [Alluding, probably, to the discourse in Matt, xxiv., delivered
by our Lord to the disciples on the Mount of Olives. — Bag.^
the gifts she bestowed on the naked and unpro-
tected poor. To some she gave money, to
others an ample supply of clothing : she liber-
ated some from imprisonment, or from the bitter
servitude of the mines ; others she delivered
from unjust oppression, and others again, she
restored from exile.
CHAPTER XLV.
Helena's Pious Conduct in the Churc/ies.
While, however, her character derived luster
from such deeds as I have described, she was
far from neglecting personal piety toward God.^
She might be seen continually frequenting his
Church, while at the same time she adorned the
houses of prayer with splendid offerings, not
overlooking the churches of the smallest cities.
In short, this admirable woman was to be seen,
in simple and modest attire, mingling with the
crowd of worshipers, and testifying her devotion
to God by a uniform course of pious conduct.
CHAPTER XLVI.
How she 7)iade her JVi//, and died at the Age of
Eighty Years.
And when at length at the close of a long life,
she was called to inherit a happier lot, having
arrived at the eightieth year of her age, and be-
ing very near the time of her departure, she
prepared and executed her last will in favor of
her only son, the emperor and sole monarch of
the world, and her grandchildren, the Caesars
his sons, to whom severally she bequeathed
whatever property she possessed in any part of
the world. Having thus made her will, this
thrice blessed woman died in the presence of
her illustrious son, who was in attendance at
her side, caring for her and held her hands : so
that, to those who rightly discerned the truth,
the thrice blessed one seemed not to die, but to
experience a real change and transition from an
earthly to a heavenly existence, since her soul,
remoulded as it were into an incorruptible and
angelic essence,^ was received up into her Sav-
iour's presence.^
1 According to some apocryphal accounts Constantine owed his
conversion to liis mother (compare the apocryphal letters mentioned
under Writings, in the Prolegomena), but Eusebius, below (ch.
47), seems to reverse the fact.
' [These words seem to savor of Origen's doctrine, to which
Eusebius was much addicted. Origen believed that, in the resur-
rection, bodies would be changed into souls, and souls into angels,
according to the testimony of Jerome. See Valesius iti loc. — Bag.^
- The date of Helena's death is usually placed in 327 or 328.
Compare Wordsworth, I.e. Since she was eighty years old at the
time of her death she must have been about twenty-five when Con-
stantine was born.
M m 2
532
CONSTANTINE.
[in. 47.
CHAPTER XLVIL
How Constantine buried his Mother, and how
he ho7wred her during her Life.
Her body, too, was honored with special
tokens of respect, being escorted on its way to
the imperial city by a vast train of guards, and
there deposited in a royal tomb. Such were
the last days of our emperor's mother, a person
worthy of being had in perpetual remembrance,
both for her own practical piety, and because
she had given birth to so extraordinary and ad-
mirable an offspring. And well may his char-
acter be styled blessed, for his filial piety as well
as on other grounds. He rendered her through
his influence so devout a worshiper of God,
(though she had not previously been such,)
that she seemed to have been instructed from
the first by the Saviour of mankind : and besides
this, he had honored her so fully with imperial
dignities, that in every province, and in the very
ranks of the soldiery, she was spoken of under
the titles of Augusta and empress, and her like-
ness was impressed on golden coins.^ He had
even granted her authority over the imperial
treasures, to use and dispense them according
to her own will and discretion in every case :
for this enviable distinction also she received at
the hands of her son. Hence it is that among
the qualities which shed a luster on his memory,
we may righdy include that surpassing degree of
filial affection whereby he rendered full obedi-
ence to the Divine precepts which enjoin due
honor from children to their parents. In this
manner, then, the emperor executed in Palestine
the noble works I have above described : and
indeed in every province he raised new churches
on a far more imposing scale than those which
had existed before his time.
CHAPTER XLVIII.
How he built Owrches in Honor of Martyrs,
and abolished Idolatry at Constantinople.
And being fully resolved to distinguish the
city which bore his name with especial honor,
he embellished it with numerous sacred edifices,
both memorials of martyrs on the largest scale,
and other buildings of the most splendid kind,
not only within the city itself, but in its vicinity :
and thus at the same time he rendered honor
to the memory of the martyrs, and consecrated
his city to the martyrs' God. Being filled, too,
with Divine wisdom, he determined to purge
' Compare note above. It is said (Wordsworth) that while sil-
ver and copper coins have been found with her name, none of gold
have yet come to light.
the city which was to be distinguished by his
own name from idolatry of every kind, that
henceforth no statues might be worshiped there
in the temples of those falsely reputed to be
gods, nor any altars defiled by the pollution of
blood : that there might be no sacrifices con-
sumed by fire, no demon festivals, nor any of
the other ceremonies usually observed by the
superstitious.
CHAPTER XLIX.
Representation of the Cross in the Palace, and
of Daniel at the Public Fountains.
On the other hand one might see the foun-
tains in the midst of the market place graced
with figures representing the good Shepherd,
well known to those who study the sacred ora-
cles, and that of Daniel also with the lions,
forged in brass, and resplendent with plates of
gold. Indeed, so large a measure of Divine
love possessed the emperor's soul, that in the
principal apartment of the imperial palace itself,
on avast tablet^ displayed in the center of its
gold-covered paneled ceiling, he caused the sym-
bol of our Saviour's Passion to be fixed, composed
of a variety of precious stones richly inwrought
with gold. This symbol he seemed to have
intended to be as it were the safeguard of the
empire itself.
CHAPTER L.
That he erected Churches in Nicomedia, and in
Other Cities.
Having thus embellished the city which bore
his name, he next distinguished the capital of
Bithynia ^ by the erection of a stately and mag-
nificent church, being desirous of raising in this
city also, in honor of his Saviour and at his
own charges, a memorial of his victory over his
own enemies and the adversaries of God. He
also decorated the principal cities of the other
provinces with sacred edifices of great beauty ;
as, for example, in the case of that metropolis
of the East which derived its name from An-
tiochus, in which, as the head of that portion
of the empire, he consecrated to the service of
God a church of unparalleled size and beauty.
The entire building was encompassed by an en-
closure of great extent, within which the church
itself rose to a vast elevation, being of an oc-
tagonal form, and surrounded on all sides by
> Perhaps the lareest " panel." The restored church of St. Paul,
outside the walls at Rome, has a paneled ceiling with a very large
central panel.
' [Nicomedia, where Constantine had besieged I.icinius, and
compelled him to surrender; in memory of which event he built this
I church. — liog-^
in. 53-]
THE LIFE OE CONSTANTINE.
533
many chambers, courts, and upper and lower
apartments ; the whole richly adorned with a
l)rofusion of gold, brass, and other materials of
the most costly kind.
CHAPTER LI.
That he ordered a Church to be built at Mambre.
Such was the principal sacred edifices erected
by the emperor's command. But having heard
tliat the self-same Saviour who erewhile had
appeared on earth ^ had in ages long since past
afforded a manifestation of his Divine presence
to holy men of Palestine near the oak of Mambre,-
he ordered that a house of prayer should be built
there also in honor of the God who had thus
appeared. Accordingly the imperial commis-
sion was transmitted to the provincial governors
by letters addressed to them individually, enjoin-
ing a speedy completion of the appointed work.
He sent moreover to the writer of this history
an eloquent admonition, a copy of which I think
it well to insert in the present work, in order to
convey a just idea of his pious diligence and
zeal. To express, then, his displeasure at the
evil practices which he had heard were usual in
the place just referred to, he addressed me in
the following terms.
CHAPTER LH.
Constantine' s Letter to Eusebiiis concerning
Mambre.
" Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus,
to Macarius, and the rest of the bishops in
Palestine.^
*' One benefit, and that of no ordinary impor-
tance, has been conferred on us by my truly
pious mother-in-law,- in that she has made
known to us by letter that abandoned folly of im-
pious men which has hitherto escaped detection
1 This doctrine, which appears again and again in Eusebius and
in Constantine, has a curiously interesting bearing at present theo-
logical controversies in America, and England for that matter. It
may be called the doctrine of the " eternal Christ," as over against
the doctrine of the " essential Christ," or that which seems to make
his existence begin with his incarnation — the "historical Christ."
He had historical e.\istence from the beginning, both as the indwell-
ing and as the objective, and one might venture to think that advo-
cates of these two views could find a meeting-ground, or solution of
difficulty at least, in this phrase which represents him who was in
the beginning with God and is and ever shall be, who has made all
thmgs which have been made, and is in all parts of the universe and
the world, among Jews and Gentiles.
2 [The English version in this passage (Gen. xviii. i), and
others, has " plains," though the Septuagint and ancient inter-
preters generally render it, as here, by " oak," some by " terebinth"
(turpentine tree), the Vulgate by " convallis." — Bag.l The Re-
vised Version (1881-1885) has " oaks."
1 The writer of this history says the letter was addressed to him,
while it is really to Macarius. On this ground the Eusebian author-
ship of the book has been challenged, but of course Eusebius is
among " the rest of the bishops."
^ [Eutropia, mother of his empress Fausta. — Bag.'\
by you : so that the criminal conduct thus over-
looked may now through our means obtain fitting
correction and remedy, necessary though ardy.
For surely it is a grave impiety indeed, that holy
places should be defiled by the stain of unhal-
lowed impurities. What then is this, dearest
brethren, which, though it has eluded your
sagacity, she of whom I speak was impelled by
a pious sense of duty to disclose ?
CHAPTER LHL
That the Saviour appeared in this Place to
Abraham.
" She assures me, then, that the place which
takes its name from the oak of Mambre, where
we find that Abraham dwelt, is defiled by certain
of the slaves of superstition in every possible
way. She declares that idols ' which should be
utterly destroyed have been erected on the site
of that tree ; that an altar is near the spot ; and
that impure sacrifices are continually performed.
Now since it is evident that these practices are
equally inconsistent with the character of our
times, and unworthy the sanctity of the place
itself, I wish your Gravities ^ to be informed that
the illustrious Count Acacius, our friend, has re-
ceived instructions by letter from me, to the
effect that every idol which shall be found in
the place above-mentioned shall immediately
be consigned to the flames ; that the altar be
utterly demolished ; and that if any one, after
this our mandate, shall be guilty of impiety of
any kind in this place, he shall be visited with
condign punishment, The place itself we have
directed to be adorned with an unpolluted struc-
ture, I mean a church ; in order that it may
become a fitting place of assembly for holy men.
Meantime, should any breach of these our com-
mands occur, it should be made known to our
clemency without the least delay by letters from
you, that we may direct the person detected to
be dealt with, as a transgressor of the law, in
the severest manner. For you are not ignorant
that the Supreme God first appeared to Abra-
ham, and conversed with him, in that place.
There it was that the observance of the Divine
law first began ; there first the Saviour himself,
with the two angels, vouchsafed to Abraham a
manifestation of his presence ; there God first
appeared to men ; there he gave promise to
Abraham concerning his future seed, and straight-
way fulfilled that promise ; there he foretold that
he should be the father of a multitude of nations.
' [These objects of idolatrous worship were probably figures in-
tended to represent the angels who had appeared to Abraham. —
Bag.'\ More probably they were some form of images obscenely
worshiped.
^ Better " Reverences," and so throughout.
534
CONSTANTINE.
[HI. 53-
For these reasons, it seems to me right that this
place should not only be kept pure through your
diligence from all defilement, but restored also to
its pristine sanctity ; that nothing hereafter may
be done there except the performance of fitting
service to him who is the Almighty God, and our
Saviour, and Lord of all. And this service it is
incumbent on you to care for with due attention,
if your Gravities be willing (and of this I feel
confident) to gratify my wishes, which are espe-
cially interested in the worship of God. May
he preserve you, beloved brethren ! "
CHAPTER LIV.
Destruction of Idol Temples and Images every-
where.
All these things the emperor diligently per-
formed to the praise of the saving power of
Christ, and thus made it his constant aim to
glorify his Saviour God. On the other hand he
used every means to rebuke the superstitious
errors of the heathen. Hence the entrances of
their temples in the several cities were left ex-
posed to the weather, being stripped of their
doors at his command ; the tiling of others was
removed, and their roofs destroyed. From others
again the venerable statues of brass, of which
the superstition of antiquity had boasted for
a long series of years, were exposed to view in
all the public places of the imperial city : so
that here a Pythian, there a Sminthian Apollo,
excited the contempt of the beholder : while
the Delphic tripods were deposited in the hip-
podrome and the Muses of Helicon in the palace
itself. In short, the city which bore his name
was everywhere filled with brazen statues of the
most exquisite workmanship, which had been
dedicated in every province, and which the
deluded victims of superstition had long vainly
honored as gods with numberless victims and
burnt sacrifices, though now at length they learnt
to renounce their error, when the emperor held
up the very objects of their worship to be the
ridicule and sport of all beholders. With regard
to those images which were of gold, he dealt
with them in a different manner. For as soon
as he understoofl that the ignorant multitudes
were inspired with a vain and childish dread of
these bugbears of error, wrought in gold and
silver, he judged it right to remove these also,
like stumbling-stones thrown in the way of men
walking in the dark, and hencefurward to open
a royal road, plain and unobstructed to all.
Having formed this resolution, he considered
no soldiers or military force of any sort needful
for the suppression of the evil : a few of his
own friends sufficed for this service, and these
he sent by a simple expression of his will to visit
each several province. Accordingly, sustained
by confidence in the emperor's pious intentions
and their own personal devotion to God, they
passed through the midst of numberless tribes
and nations, abolishing this ancient error in
every city and country. They ordered the
priests themselves, amidst general laughter and
scorn, to bring their gods from their dark re-
cesses to the light of day : they then stripped
them of their ornaments, and exhibited to the
gaze of all the unsightly reality which had been
hidden beneath a painted exterior. Lastly, what-
ever part of the material appeared valuable they
scraped off and melted in the fire to prove its
worth, after which they secured and set apart
whatever they judged needful for their purpose,
leaving to the superstitious worshipers that
which was altogether useless, as a memorial of
their shame. Meanwhile our admirable prince
was himself engaged in a work similar to what
we have described. For at the same time that
these costly images of the dead were stripped,
as we have said, of their precious materials, he
also attacked those composed of brass ; causing
those to be dragged from their places with ropes
and as it were carried away captive, whom the
dotage of mythology had esteemed as gods.
CHAPTER LV.
Overthrotv of an Idol Temple, and Abolition
of Licentious Practices, at Aphaca in Phoe-
nicia.
The emperor's next care was to kindle, as it
were, a brilliant torch, by the light of which he
directed his imperial gaze around, to see if any
hidden vestiges of error might still exist. And
as the keen-sighted eagle in its heavenward flight
is able to descry from its lofty height the most
distant objects on the earth, so did he, while
residing in the imperial palace of his own fair
city, discover as from a watch-tower a hidden
and fatal snare of souls in the province of Ph(x;-
nicia. This was a grove and temple, not situ-
ated in the midst of any city, nor in any public
place, as for splendor of effect is generally the
case, but apart from the beaten and frequented
road, at Aphaca, on part of the summit of Mount
Lebanon, and dedicated to the foul demon known
by the name of Venus. It was a school of
wickedness for all the votaries of impurity, and
such as destroyed their bodies with effeminacy.
Here men undeserving of the name forgot the
dignity of their sex, and propitiated the demon
by their effeminate conduct ; here too unlawful
commerce of women and adulterous intercourse,
with other horrible and infamous practices, were
!
III. 58.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
535
perpetrated in this temple as in a place beyond
the scope and restraint of law. Meantime these
evils remained unchecked by the presence of
any observer, since no one of fair character
ventured to visit such scenes. These proceed-
ings, however, couUl not escape the vigilance of
our august emperor, who, having himself in-
spected them with characteristic forethought,
and judging that such a temple was unfit for the
light of heaven, gave orders that the building
with its offerings should be utterly destroyed.
Accordingly, in obedience to the imperial com-
mand, these engines of an impure superstition
were immediately abolished, and the hand of
military force was made instrumental in purg-
ing the place. And now those who had hereto-
fore lived without restraint learned self-control
through the emperor's threat of punishment, as
likewise those superstitious Gentiles wise in their
own conceit, who now obtained experimental
proof of their own folly.
CHAPTER LVI.
Dcsiniciion of the Temple of ^sculapius at
For since a wide-spread error of these pre-
tenders to wisdom concerned the demon wor-
shiped in Cilicia, whom thousands regarded
with reverence as the possessor of saving and
healing power, who sometimes appeared to those
who passed the night in his temple, sometimes
restored the diseased to health, though on the
contrary he was a destroyer of souls, who drew
his easily deluded worshipers from the true
Saviour to involve them in impious error, the
emperor, consistently with his practice, and de-
sire to advance the worship of him who is at
once a jealous God and the true Saviour, gave
directions that this temple also should be razed
to the ground. In prompt obedience to this
command, a band of soldiers laid this building,
the admiration of noble philosophers, prostrate
in the dust, together with its unseen inmate,
neither demon nor god, but rather a deceiver
of souls, who had seduced mankind for so long
a time through various ages. And thus he who
had promised to others deliverance from misfor-
tune and distress, could find no means for his
own security, any more than when, as is told in
myth, he was scorched by the lightning's stroke.-
Our emperor's pious deeds, however, had in them
nothing fabulous or feigned ; but by virtue of
the manifested power of his Saviour, this temple
as well as others was so utterly overthrown, that
not a vestige of the former follies was left
behind.
1 [On the coast of Cilicia, near Issus. — ^''^■l
- [By Jupiter, for restoring Hippolytus to life, at Diana's re-
quest.— -Ba^.]
CHAPTER LVH.
I/o7a tlie Gentiles abainloncd Idol Worship, and
turned to the Knowledi^e of God.
Hknce it was that, of those who had been
the slaves of superstition, when they saw with
their own eyes the exposure of their delusion,
and beheld the actual ruin of tlie temples and
images in every place, some applied themselves
to the saving doctrine of Christ ; while others,
though they declined to take this step, yet repro-
bated the folly which they had received from
their fathers, and laughed to scorn what they
had so long been accustomed to regard as gods.
Indeed, what other feelings could possess their
minds, when they witnessed the thorough un-
cleanness concealed beneath the fair exterior of
the objects of their worship? Beneath this
were found either the bones of dead men or
dry skulls, fraudulently adorned by the arts of
magicians,^ or filthy rags full of abominable im-
purity, or a bundle of hay or stubble. On see-
ing all these things heaped together within their
lifeless images, they denounced their fathers'
extreme folly and their own, especially when
neither in the secret recesses of the temples
nor in the statues themselves could any inmate
be found ; neither demon, nor utterer of oracles,
neither god nor prophet, as they had heretofore
supposed : nay, not even a dim and shadowy
phantom could be seen. Accordingly, every
gloomy cavern, every hidden recess, afforded easy
access to the emperor's emissaries : the inacces-
sible and secret chambers, the innermost shrines
of the temples, were trampled by the soldiers'
feet ; and thus the mental blindness which had
prevailed for so many ages over the gentile
world became clearly apparent to the eyes of
all.
CHAPTER LVIII.
Hoiv he destroyed tlie Temple of Venus at Beli-
opolis, and built the First Church in that
City.
Such actions as I have described may well be
reckoned among the emperor's noblest achieve-
ments, as also the wise arrangements which he
made respecting each particular province. We
may instance the Phoenician city Heliopolis, in
which those who dignify licentious pleasure with
a distinguishing title of honor, had permitted
their wives and daughters to commit shameless
fornication. But now a new statute, breathing
the very spirit of modesty, proceeded from the
emperor, which peremptorily forbade the con-
1 Through another reading translated by Val., ijoq, 5rt^.," stolen
by impostors." Stroth has " impiously employed for magicians'
arts."
536
CONSTANTINE.
[III. 58.
tinuance of former practices. And besides this,
he sent them also written exhortations, as though
he had been especially ordained by God for this
end, that he might instruct all men in the prin-
ciples of chastity. Hence, he disdained not to
communicate by letter even with these persons,
urging them to seek diligently the knowledge
of God. At the same time he followed up his
words by corresponding deeds, and erected even
in this city a church of great size and magnifi-
cence : so that an event unheard of before in
any age, now for the first time came to pass,
namely, that a city which had hitherto been
wholly given up to superstition now obtained
the privilege of a church of God, with presby-
ters and deacons, and its people were placed
under the presiding care of a bishop conse-
crated to the service of the supreme God. And
further, the emperor, being anxious that here
also as many as possible might be \von to the
truth, bestowed abundant provision for the ne-
cessities of the poor, desiring even thus to
invite them to seek the doctrines of salvation,
as though he were almost adopting the words of
him who said, " Whether in pretense, or in
truth, let Christ be preached." ^
CHAPTER LIX.
Of the Disturbance at Aniioch by Eustathii/s.
In the midst, however, of the general happi-
ness occasioned by these events, and while the
Church of God was every where and every way
flourishing throughout the empire, once more
that spirit of envy, who ever watches for the
ruin of the good, prepared himself to combat
the greatness of our prosperity, in the expecta-
tion, perhaps, that the emperor himself, pro-
voked by our tumults and disorders, might
eventually become estranged from us. Accord-
ingly, he kindled a furious controversy at Anti-
och, and thereby involved the church in that
place in a series of tragic calamities, which had
well-nigh occasioned the total overthrow of the
city. The members of the Church were divided
into two opposite parties ; while the people,
including even the magistrates and soldiery,
were roused to such a pitch, that the contest
would have been decided by the sword, had not
the watchful i)rovidence of God, as well as dread
of the emperor's displeasure, controlled the fury
of the multitude. On this occasion, too, the
emperor, acting the part of a preserver and phy-
sician of souls, applied with much forbearance
the remedy of persuasion to those who needed
it. He gently pleaded, as it were by an em-
bassy, with his people, sending among them one
' Phil. i. 18. But " is preached," not " let Christ be preached.'
of the best approved and most faithful of those
who were honored with the dignity of Count ; ^
at the same time that he exhorted them to a
peaceable spirit by repeated letters, and in-
structed them in the practice of true godliness.
Having prevailed by these remonstrances, he
excused their conduct in his subsequent letters,
alleging that he had himself heard the merits of
the case from him on whose account the dis-
turbance had arisen.^ And these letters of his,
which are replete with learning and instruction
of no ordinary kind, I should have inserted in
this present work, were it not that they might
afifix a mark of dishonor to the character of the
persons accused. I will therefore omit these,
being unwilling to revive the memory of past
grievances, and will only annex those to my
present narrative which he wrote to testify his
satisfaction at the re-estabhshment of peace and
concord among the rest. In these letters, he
cautioned them against any desire to claim the
ruler of another district,^ through whose inter-
vention peace had been restored, as their own,
and exhorted them, consistently with the usage
of the Church, to choose him as their bishop,
whom the common Saviour of all should point
out as suited for the office. His letter, then,
is addressed to the people and to the bishops,
severally, in the following terms.
CHAPTER LX.
Constantine^s Letter to the Antiochians, direct-
ing them not to with draw Eusebius from
Cccsarca, but to seek some one else.
"Victor Constantinus, ]\Iaximus Augustus,
to the people of Antioch.
" How pleasing to the wise and intelligent
portion of mankind is the concord which exists
among you ! And I myself, brethren, am dis-
posed to love you with an enduring affection,
inspired both by religion, and by your own man-
ner of life and zeal on my behalf. It is by the
exercise of right understanding and sound dis-
cretion, that we are enabled really to enjoy our
blessings. And what can become you so well as
this discretion? No wonder, then, if I afiirm
that your maintenance of the truth has tended
rather to promote your security than to draw
on you the hatred of others. Indeed, amongst
brethren, whom the selfsame disposition to walk
' " Relieved to have been StrateRUS Musonius " ( I'eiiables).
- \ F.iistatliiii<;, bishop of Antioch, whose deposition, on the
urouiid of a charge of immorality, by the partisans of Eusebius of
Nicomcdia, had occasioned the disturbances alluded to in the text.
— /?«.«". 1 There is a view that this whole trouble was the result of
an intrigue of Kusebius to pet the better of Eustathius, who was in
a sense a rival. Compare for very vigorous expression of this view,
Venablcs, Eustathius of Antioch, in Smith and Wace, Diet.
•■' This is rather literal, and the paraphrase o{ Molz. may be better,
" no foreign bishops."
III. 60.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
537
in the ways of truth and righteousness promises,
through the favor of (."lod, to register among his
pure and holy family, what can be more honor-
able than gladly to acquiesce in the prosperity
of all men ? Especially since the precei)ts of the
divine law prescribe a better direction to your
proposed intention, and we ourselves desire that
your judgment should be confirmed by proper
sanction.^ It may be that you are surprised,
and at a loss to understand the meaning of this
introduction to my present address. The cause
of it I will not hesitate to explain without re-
serve. I confess, then, that on reading your
records I perceived, by the highly eulogistic
testimony which they bear to Eusebius, bishop
of Cgesarea, wliom 1 have myself long well known
and esteemed for his learning and moderation,
that you are strongly attached to him, and de-
sire to appropriate him as your own. ^Vhat
thoughts, then, do you suppose that I entertain
on this subject, desirous as I am to seek for and
act on the strict principles of right? What
anxiety do you imagine this desire of yours has
caused me? O holy faith, who givest us in our
Saviour's words and precepts a model, as it were,
of what our life should be, how hardly wouldst
thou thyself resist the sins of men, were it not
that thou refusest to subserve the purposes of
gain ! In my own judgment, he whose first ob-
ject is the maintenance of peace, seems to be
superior to Victory herself; and where a right
and honorable course lies open to one's choice,
surely no one would hesitate to adopt it. I ask
then, brethren, why do we so decide as to in-
flict an injury on others by our choice? Why
do we covet those objects which will destroy the
credit of our own reputation? I myself highly
esteem the individual whom ye judge worthy of
your respect and affection : notwithstanding, it
cannot be right that those principles should be
entirely disregarded which should be authorita-
tive and binding on all alike, so that each should
not be content with his own circumstances, and
all enjoy their proper privileges : nor can it be
right, in considering the claims of rival candi-
dates, to suppose but that not one only, but
many, may appear worthy of comparison with
this person. For as long as no violence or
harshness are suffered to disturb the dignities of
the church, they continue to be on an equal
footing, and worthy of the same consideration
everywhere. Nor is it reasonable that an in-
quiry into the qualifications of this one should
be made to the detriment of others ; since the
judgment of all churches, whether reckoned of
greater or less importance in themselves, is
equally capable of receiving and maintaining the
1 To the various and controverted translations of this passage
it may be ventured to add one, " we ourselves desire your judgment
to be fortified by good counsels."
divine ordinances, so that one is in no way in-
ferior to another, if we will but boldly declare
the truth, in regard to that standard of practice
which is common to all. If this be so, we must
say that you will be chargeable, not with retain-
ing this prelate, but with wrongfully removing
him ; your conduct will be characterized rather
by violence tlian justice ; and whatever may be
generally thought by others, I dare clearly and
boldly affirm that this measure will furnish
ground of accusation against you, and will pro-
voke factious disturbances of the most mischiev-
ous kind : for even timid flocks can show the
use and power of their teeth, when the watchful
care of their shepherd declines, and they find
themselves bereft of his accustomed guidance.
If this then be really so, if I am not deceived in
my judgment, let this, brethren, be your first
consideration, for many and important consid-
erations will immediately present themselves,
whether, should you persist in your intention,
that mutual kindly feeling and affection which
should subsist among you will suffer no dimi-
nution? In the next place, remember that
he, who came among you for the purpose of
offering disinterested counsel,^ now enjoys the
reward which is due to him in the judgment of
heaven ; for he has received no ordinary recom-
pense in the high testimony you have borne to
his equitable conduct. Lastly, in accordance
with your usual sound judgment, do ye exhibit
a becoming diligence in selecting the person of
whom you stand in need, carefully avoiding all
factious and tumultuous clamor ; for such clamor
is always wrong, and from the collision of dis-
cordant elements both sparks and flame will
arise. I protest, as I desire to please God and
you, and to enjoy a happiness commensurate
with your kind wishes, that I love you, and the
quiet haven of your gentleness, now that you
have cast from you that which defiled,^ and re-
ceived in its place at once sound morality and
concord, firmly planting in the vessel the sacred
standard, and guided, as one may say, by a helm
of iron in your course onward to the light of
heaven. Receive then on board that merchan-
dise which is incorruptible, since, as it were, all
- The other point of view has been alluded to. It seems on the
face of it, in this unanimous endorsement by the church, as if Euse-
bius had had the right of it in his quarrel with Eustathius; but on
the other hand, it is to be remembered that this wonderful harmony
in the church had come about from the fact that Eustathius and all
who sympathized with him had withdrawn, and only the party of
Eusebius was left. It would be like a " unanimous " vote in Parlia-
ment with all the opposition benches empty. The endorsement of
his own party does not count for much.
' [Alluding to the deposition of Eustathius, who had been
charged with the crime of seduction. The reader who consults the
original of this chapter, especially the latter part of it, may judge
of the difficulty of eliciting any tolerable sense from an obscure, and
possibly corrupted, text. — Bag:] The translator {Bag^.) shows
ingenuity in this extracting of the general sense from the involved
Greek of the writing of Constantine or the translation as it suppos-
ably is. Rut the very fact of the obscurity shown in this and in his
oration alike is conclusive against any thought that the literary
work ascribed to Constantine was written by Eusebius.
538
CONSTANTINE.
[III. 60.
bilge water
has been drained from the vessel ;
and be careful henceforth so to secure the en-
joyment of all your present blessing, that you
may not seem at any future time either to have
determined any measure on the impulse of
inconsiderate or ill-directed zeal, or in the first
instance rashly to have entered on an inexpe-
dient course. May God preserve you, beloved
brethren ! "
CHAPTER LXI.
The Emperor's Letter to Eusebius praising him
for refusing the Bishopric of Antioch.
The Emperor's Letter to me on my refusing the
Bishopric of Antioch.
"Victor Constantinus, ]\Iaxlmus Augustus,
to Eusebius.
" I have most carefully perused your letter,
and perceive that you have strictly conformed
to the rule enjoined by the discipline of the
Church. Now to abide by that which appears
at the same time pleasing to God, and accordant
with apostolical tradition, is a proof of true
piety. You have reason to deem yourself happy
on this behalf, that you are counted worthy, in
the judgment, I may say, of all the world, to
have the oversight of any church. For the de-
sire which all feel to claim you for their own,
undoubtedly enhances your enviable fortune in
this respect. Notwithstanding, your Prudence,
whose resolve it is to observe the ordinances of
God and the apostolic canon of the Church,^ has
done excellently well in declining the bishopric
of the church at Antioch, and desiring to con-
tinue in that church of which you first received
the oversight by the will of God. I have writ-
ten on this subject to the people of Antioch, and
also to your colleagues in the ministry who had
themselves consulted me in regard to this ques-
tion ; on reading which letters, your Holiness will
easily discern, that, inasmuch as justice itself
opposed their claims, I have written to them
under divine direction. It will be necessary
that your Prudence should be present at their
conference, in order that this decision may be
ratified in the church at Antioch. God pre-
serve you, beloved brother ! "
CHAPTER LXn.
Cons tan ti7ie's Letter to the Council, deprecating
the Removal of Eusebius from Cicsarea.
"Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus,
to Theodotus, Theodorus, Narcissus, Aetius,
Alpheus, and the rest of the bishops who are
at Antioch.
' Canon 15 (or 14) of the " Apostolical Canons." Cf. ed. Bruns.
X (Berol. 1839), 3.
" I have perused the letters written by your
Prudences, and highly approve of the wise reso-
lution of your colleague in the ministry, Euse-
bius. Having, moreover, been informed of the
circumstances of the case, partly by your letters,
partly by those of our illustrious counts,^ Acacius
and Strategius, after sufficient investigation I
have written to the people of Antioch, suggest-
ing the course which will be at once pleasing to
God and advantageous for the Church. A copy
of this I have ordered to be subjoined to this
present letter, in order that ye yourselves may
know what I thought fit, as an advocate of the
cause of justice, to write to that people : since
I find in your letter this proposal, that, in con-
sonance with the choice of the people, sanc-
tioned by your own desire, Eusebius the holy
bishop of Caesarea should preside over and take
the charge of the church at Antioch. Now the
letters of Eusebius himself on this subject ap-
peared to be strictly accordant with the order
prescribed by the Church. Nevertheless it is
expedient that your Prudences should be made
acquainted with my opinion also. For I am
informed that F^uphronius the presbyter, who is
a citizen of C?esarea in Cappadocia, and George
of Arethusa, likewise a presbyter, and appointed
to that office by Alexander at Alexandria,- are
men cjf tried faith. It was right, therefore, to
intimate to your Prudences, that in proposing
these men and any others whom you may deem
worthy the episcopal dignity, you should decide
this question in a manner conformable to the
tradition of the apostles. For in that case,
your Prudences will be able, according to the
rule of the Church and apostolic tradition, to
direct this election in the manner which true
ecclesiastical discipline shall prescribe. God
preserve you, beloved brethren ! "
CHAFl^ER LXIII.
How he displayed his Zeal for the Extirpation
of JLeresics.
Such were the exhortations to do all things to
the honor of the divine religion which the em-
peror addressed to the rulers of the churches.
Having by these means banished dissension, and
' The word has thus Renerally been rendered by Bag., and docs
probably refer to their official title, although in this case and occa-
sionally he translates " friends."
' (George (afterwards bishop of Laodicea) appears to have been
dcsradcd from the office of presbyter on the Rrnund of impiety, by
the same bishop who had ordained him. Both GeorKC and Euphro-
nius were of the Arian party, of which fact it is possible that Con-
stantine was ignorant. — Iiaff.'\ Georgius was at one time or another
Arian, semi-Arian, and Anomoean, and is said to have been called
by Athanasius " the most wicked of all the Arians " (Venablcs in
Smith and Wace, Diet. 2. 637). He was constantly pitted against
F.iistnlhius, which accounts for his appearance at this time. Ku-
phronius was the one chosen at this time. Compare Bennett,
Euphronius, in Smith and Wace, Diet. 2. 297.
III. 65.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
539
reduced the Church of God to a state of uni-
form harmony, he next proceeded to a different
duty, feehng it incumbent on him to extirpate
another sort of impious persons, as pernicious
enemies of the human race. These were pests
of society, who ruined whole cities under the
specious garb of rehgious decorum ; men whom
our Saviour's warning voice somewhere terms
false prophets and ravenous wolves : " Beware
of false prophets, which will come to you in
sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening
wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them." '
Accordingly, by an order transmitted to the
governors of the several provinces, he effectu-
ally banished all such offenders. In addition to
this ordinance he addressed to them personally
a severely awakening admonition, exhorting
them to an earnest repentance, that they might
still find a haven of safety in the true Church
of God. Hear, then, in what manner he ad-
dressed them in this letter.
CHAPTER LXIV.
Coiisiantine's Edict against the Heretics.
"Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus,
to the heretics.
" Understand now, by this present statute, ye
Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians,
ye who are called Cataphrygians,^ and all ye who
devise and support heresies by means of your
private assemblies, with what a tissue of false-
hood and vanity, with what destructive and ven-
omous errors, your doctrines are inseparably
interwoven ; so that through you the healthy
soul is stricken with disease, and the living be-
comes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters
and enemies of truth and life, in league with
destruction ! All your counsels are opposed
to the truth, but familiar with deeds of base-
ness \ full of absurdities and fictions : and by
these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the inno-
cent, and withhold the light from them that
believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of
godliness, ye fill all things with defilement : ye
pierce the pure and guileless conscience with
deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may
almost say, the very light of day from the eyes
of men. But why should I particularize, when
to speak of your criminality as it deserves de-
mands more time and leisure than I can give?
For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of
1 [Matt. vii. 15, 16.J Quoted perhaps from memory, or else this
text is defective, for this reads, " will come " where all N. T. MSS.
liave " come."
1 Sufficiently good general accounts of these various heresies
may be found in Blunt. Diet, of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical
Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought, Lond. 1874, p. 382-
389, Novatians; p. 612-614, Valentinians; p. 296-298, Marcionites;
p. 515-517, Samosatenes (Paulians); p. 336-341, Monlanists (Cata-
phrygians). Or see standard Encyclopsedias.
your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious
are they, that a single day would not suffice to
recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to
turn one's ears and eyes from such a subject,
lest by a description of each particular evil, the
pure sincerity and freshness of one's own faith
be impaired. Why then do I still bear with
such abounding evil ; especially since this pro-
tracted clemency is the cause that some who
were sound are become tainted with this pesti-
lent disease ? Why not at once strike, as it were,
at the root of so great a mischief by a public
manifestation of displeasure ?
CHAPTER LXV.
The Heretics are deprived of their Meeting
Places.
" Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible
to bear with your pernicious errors, we give
warning by this present statute that none of you
henceforth presume to assemble yourselves to-
gether.^ We have directed, accordingly, that you
be deprived of all the houses in which you are
accustomed to hold your assemblies : and our
care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the
holding of your superstitious and senseless meet-
ings, not in public merely, but in any private
house or place whatsoever. Let those of you,
therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true
and pure religion, take the far better course of
entering the catholic Church, and uniting with
it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be ena-
bled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. In
any case, the delusions of your perverted under-
standings must entirely cease to mingle with
and mar the felicity of our present times : I
mean the impious and wretched double-minded-
ness of heretics and schismatics. For it is an
object worthy of that prosperity which we enjoy
through the favor of God, to endeavor to bring
back those who in time past were living in the
hope of future blessing, from all irregularity and
error to the right path, from darkness to light,
from vanity to truth, from death to salvation.
And in order that this remedy may be applied
with effectual power, we have commanded, as
before said, that you be positively deprived of
every gathering point for your superstitious
meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer, if
such be worthy of the name, which belong to
' There is throughout this Life a curious repetition in the details
of action against heretics of precisely the same things which Chris-
tians complained of as having been done to them. The idea of
toleration then seems to have been much as it was in pre-reformation
times, or, not to judge other times when there is a beam in our own
eye, as it is in America and England to-day, — the largest toleration
for ever>' one who thinks as we do, and for the others a temporary
suspension of the rule to " judge not," with an amended prayer,
" Lord, condemn them, for they know not what they do," and a
vigorous attempt to force the divine judgment.
540
CONSTANTINE.
[III. 65.
heretics, and that these be made over without
delay to the cathohc Church ; that any other
places be confiscated to the public service, and
no facility whatever be left for any future gather-
ing ; in order that from this day forward none
of your unlawful assemblies may presume to
appear in any public or private place. Let this
edict be made public."
CHAPTER LXVI.
Hoiu on the Discovery of Prohibited Books
among the Heretics, Many of them return to
the Catholic Church.
Thus were the lurking-places of the heretics
broken up by the emperor's command, and the
savage beasts they harbored (I mean the chief
authors of their impious doctrines) driven to
flight. Of those whom they had deceived,
some, intimidated by the emperor's threats, dis-
guising their real sentiments, crept secretly into
the Church. For since the law directed that
search should be made for their books, those
of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts
were detected, and these were ready to secure
their own safety by dissimulation of every kind.^
Others, however, there were, who voluntarily
' Here again it is worth noting, for history and for edification,
that books were prohibited and heretics treated just as the Christians
did not like to " be done by," by the heathen.
and with real sincerity embraced a better hope.
Meantime the prelates of the several churches
continued to make strict inquiry, utterly reject-
ing those who attempted an entrance under the
specious disguise of false pretenses, while those
who came with sincerity of purpose were proved
for a time, and after sufificient trial numbered
with the congregation. Such was the treatment
of those who stood charged with rank heresy :
those, however, who maintained no impious doc-
trine, but had been separated from the one body
through the influence of schismatic advisers,
were received without difficulty or delay. Ac-
cordingly, numbers thus revisited, as it were,
their own country after an absence in a foreign
land, and acknowledged the Church as a mother
from whom they had wandered long, and to
whom they now returned with joy and gladness.
Thus the members of the entire body became
united, and compacted in one harmonious whole ;
and the one catholic Church, at unity with itself,
shone with full luster, while no heretical or
schismatic body anywhere continued to exist.^
And the credit of having achieved this mighty
work our Heaven-protected emperor alone, of
all v.-ho had gone before him, was able to attrib-
ute to himself.
- This famous " church unity," for which Constantine has been
blessed or execrated, as the case might be, in all the ages since, was
hardly more complete than modern unified churches where all the
members held different pet doctrines and are prepared to fight for
them to the bitter end.
BOOK IV.
CHAPTER I.
How he ho7iored Many by Presents and Promo-
tions.
While thus variously engaged in promoting
the extension and glory of the Church of God,
and striving by every measure to commend the
Saviour's doctrine, the emperor was far from
neglecting secular affairs ; but in this respect
also he was unwearied in bestowing benefits of
every kind and in quick succession on the peo-
ple of every province. On the one hand he
manifested a paternal anxiety for the general
welfare of his subjects ; on the other he would
distinguish individuals of his own acquaintance
with various marks of honor; conferring his
benefits in every instance in a truly noble spirit.
No one could request a favor from the emperor,
and fail of obtaining what he sought : no one ex-
pected a boon from him, and found that expec-
tation vain.^ Some received presents in money,
others in land ; some obtained the Praetorian
prcefecture, others senatorial, others again con-
sular rank : many were appointed provincial
governors : others were made counts of the
first, second, or third order : in numberless in-
stances the title of Most Illustrious, and many
other distinctions were conferred ; for the em-
peror devised new dignities, that he might invest
a larger number with the tokens of his favor.
CHAPTER n.
Remission of a Fourth Pa^-t of the Taxes.
The extent to which he studied the general
happiness and prosperity may be understood
from a single instance, most beneficial and uni-
versal in its application, and still gratefully re-
membered. He remitted a fourth part of the
yearly tribute paid for land, and bestowed it on
the owners of the soil ; so that if we compute
this yearly reduction, we shall find that the cul-
tivators enjoyed their produce free of tribute
every fourth year.^ This privilege being estab-
lished by law, and secured for the time to come,
' Compare Prolegomena, under Character, for the criticism of
this conduct from those who viewed it from another point of view.
^ For directly contrary account of his taxations, compare Pro-
legomena, under Character.
has given occasion for the emperor's beneficence
to be held, not merely by the then present gen-
eration, but by their children and descendants,
in perpetual remembrance.
CHAPTER HI.
Equalization of the More Oppj-essive Taxes.
And whereas some persons found fault with
the surveys of land which had been made under
former emperors, and complained that their
property was unduly burdened ; acting in this
case also on the principles of justice, he sent
commissioners to equalize the tribute, and to
secure immunity to those who had made this
appeal.
CHAPTER IV.
His Liberality, from his Private Resources, to
the Losers in Suits of a Pecuniajy Nature.
In cases of judicial arbitration, in order that
the loser by his decision might not quit his pres-
ence less contented than the victorious litigant,
he himself bestowed, and from his own private
means, in some cases lands, in other money, on
the defeated party. In this manner he took
care that the loser, as having appeared in his
presence, should be as well satisfied as the gainer
of the cause ; for he considered that no one
ought in any case to retire dejected and sorrow-
ful from an interview with such a prince.^ Thus
it happened that both parties returned from the
scene of trial with glad and cheerful counte-
nances, while the emperor's noble-minded liber-
ality excited universal admiration.
CHAPTER V.
Conquest of the Scythians defeated through the
Sign of Our Saviour.
And why should I relate even briefly and in-
cidentally, how he subjected barbarous nations
to the Roman power ; how he was the first who
' In reality it may have been less childish than Eusebius makes
it appear, for it probably refers to cases where it was a matter of
just equalization of claims, where each party thought his claim just.
542
CONSTANTINE.
[IV. 5.
subjugated the Scythian^ and Sarmatian tribes,
which had never learned submission, and com-
pelled them, how unwilling soever, to own the
sovereignty of Rome? For the emperors who
preceded him had actually rendered tribute to
the Scythians : and Romans, by an annual pay-
ment, had confessed themselves servants to bar-
barians ; an indignity which our emperor could
no longer bear, nor think it consistent with his
victorious career to continue the payment his
predecessors had made. Accordingly, with full
confidence in his Saviour's aid, he raised his
conquering standard against these enemies also,
and soon reduced them all to obedience ; coerc-
ing by military force those who fiercely resisted
his authority, while, on the other hand, he con-
ciliated the rest by wisely conducted embassies,
and reclaimed them to a state of order and civ-
ilization from their lawless and savage life. Thus
the Scythians at length learned to acknowledge
subjection to the power of Rome.
CHAPTER VI.
Conquest of the Sannaiians, consequent on the
Rebellion of their Slaves.
With respect to the Sarmatians, God him-
self brought them beneath the rule of Constan-
tine, and subdued a nation swelling with barbaric
pride in the following manner. Being attacked
by the Scythians, they had entrusted their slaves
with arms, in order to repel the enemy. These
slaves first overcame the invaders, and then,
turning their weapons against their masters,
drove them all from their native land. The
expelled Sarmatians found that their only hope
of safety was in Constantine's protection : and
he, whose familiar habit it was to save men's
lives, received them all within the confines of
the Roman empire.^ Those who were capable
of serving he incorporated with his own troops :
to the rest he allotted lands to cultivate for their
own support : so that they themselves acknowl-
edged that their past misfortune had produced
a hai)py result, in that they now enjoyed Roman
liberty in place of savage barbarism. In this
manner God added to his dominions many and
various barbaric tribes.
CHAPTER VII.
Ambassadors frojn Different Barbarous Nations
1-eccive Presents frojn the Empei'or,
Indeed, ambassadors were continually arriving
from all nations, bringing for his acceptance
' [Probably the Goths arc meant, as in Socrates' F.ccles. Hist.
Bk. 1. ch. 18. — /'rt.C-1 Compare for his Gothic wars, references in
Prolegomena, under Life.
' To the number of 300,000, according to Anonymus Valesia-
nus. This was in the year 334.
their most precious gifts. So that I myself have
sometimes stood near the entrance of the im-
perial palace, and observed a noticeable array
of barbarians in attendance, differing from each
other in costume and decorations, and equally
unlike in the fashion of their hair and beard.
Their aspect truculent and terrible, their bodily
stature prodigious : some of a red complexion,
others white as snow, others again of an inter-
mediate color. For in the number of those I
have referred to might be seen specimens of
the Blemmyan tribes, of the Indians, and the
Ethiopians,^ " that widely-divided race, remot-
est of mankind." All these in due succession,
like some painted pageant, presented to the
emperor those gifts which their own nation held
in most esteem ; some offering crowns of gold,
others diadems set with precious stones ; some
bringing fair-haired boys, others barbaric vest-
ments embroidered with gold and flowers : some
appeared with horses, others with shields and
long spears, with arrows and bows, thereby offer-
ing their ser\'ices and alliance for the emperor's
acceptance. These presents he separately re-
ceived and carefully laid aside, acknowledging
them in so munificent a manner as at once to
enrich those who bore them. He also honored
the noblest among them with Roman offices
of dignity ; so that many of them thencefonvard
preferred to continue their residence among us,
and felt no desire to revisit their native land.
CHAPTER VIII.
That he 7CI rote also to the King of Persia^ 7ii]io
had sent hitn a7i Embassy, on Behalf of the
Christians in his Realm.
The king of the Persians also having testified
a desire to form an alliance with Constantine,
by sending an embassy and presents as assur-
ances of peace and friendship, the emperor, in
negotiating this treaty, far surpassed the mon-
arch who had first done him honor, in the mag-
nificence with which he acknowledged his gifts.
Having heard, too, that there were many
churches of God in Persia, and that large num-
bers there were gathered into the fold of Christ,
full of joy at this intelligence, he resolved to
extend his anxiety for the general welfare to
that country also, as one whose aim it was
to care for all alike in every nation.
' [Aiflion-ai;, Toi 5i;^Sa SeSaiarai, ecrx^TOt ai'Spui',
()i i>.kv h\i(jo\i.ivov i/TTtpiovo?, oi 6' andi'TOS.
— Odyss. I. 23, 24. — Bag.'\
' Sapor II. (310-381) callcJ the Great, one of the Sassanid.x' and
afterwards the persistent enemy of the sons of Constantine. He was
at various times a bitter persecutor of the Cliristians, and it is s.aid
(I'lnte) that " no Persian kini; had ever caused such terror to Kome
as tliis monarch." Compare article by Plate on the Sassanida; in
Smith, Did. of Gr, and R. Biog. and Mytliol.
i
IV. 13.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
543
CHAPTER IX.
Letter of Constaiitine Augustus to Sapor, King
of the Persians, containing a truly Pious Cofi-
fession of God and Christ.
Copy of his Letter to the King of Persia.
" By keeping the Divine faith, I am made a"
partaker of the Hght of truth : guided by the
light of truth, I advance in the knowledge of
the Divine faith. Hence it is that, as my ac-
tions themselves evince, I profess the most holy
religion ; and this worship I declare to be that
which teaches me deeper acquaintance with the
most holy God ; aided by whose Divine power,
beginning from the very borders of the ocean, I
have aroused each nation of the world in suc-
cession to a well-grounded hope of security ; so
that those which, groaning in servitude to the
most cruel tyrants, and yielding to the pressure
of their daily sufferings, had well nigh been
utterly destroyed, have been restored through
my agency to a far happier state. This God I
confess that I hold in unceasing honor and re-
membrance ; this God I delight to contemplate
with pure and guileless thoughts in the height
of his glory.
CHAPTER X.
The Writer denounces Idols, and glorifies God.
" This God I invoke with bended knees, and
recoil with horror from the blood of sacrifices,
from their foul and detestable odors, and from
every earth-born magic fire : ^ for the profane
and impious superstitions which are defiled by
these rites have cast down and consigned to per-
dition many, nay, whole nations of the Gentile
world. For he who is Lord of all cannot endure
that those blessings which, in his own loving-
kindness and consideration of the wants of men,
he has revealed for the use of all, should be
perverted to serve the lusts of any. His only
demand from man is purity of mind and an un-
defiled spirit ; and by this standard he weighs
the actions of virtue and godliness. For his
pleasure is in works of moderation and gentle-
ness : he loves the meek, and hates the turbu-
lent spirit : delighting in faith, he chastises
unbelief: by him all presumptuous power is
broken down, and he avenges the insolence
of the proud. While the arrogant and haughty
are utterly overthrown, he requites the humble
and forgiving with deserved rewards : even so
does he highly honor and strengthen with his
special help a kingdom justly governed, and
* [Referring to the luminous appearances produced by the Pagan
priests in the celebration of their mysteries. — -Sa^.J
maintains a prudent king in the tranquillity of
peace.
CHAPTER XI.
Against the Tyrants and Persecutors ; and on
the Captivity of Valerian.
" I CANNOT, then, my brother, believe that I
err in acknowledging this one God, the author
and parent of all things : whom many of my
predecessors in power, led astray by the madness
of error, have ventured to deny, but who were
all visited with a retribution so terrible and so
destructive, that all succeeding generations have
held up their calamities as the most effectual
warning to any who desire to follow in their
steps. Of the number of these I believe him ^
to have been, whom the lightning-stroke of
Divine vengeance drove forth from hence, and
banished to your dominions, and whose disgrace
contributed to the fame of your celebrated
triumph.
CHAPTER XII.
I/e declares that, having witnessed the Fall of
the Persecutors, he no7u rejoices at the Peace
enjoyed by the Christians.
" And it is surely a happy circumstance that
the punishment of such persons as I have de-
scribed should have been publicly manifested in
our own times. For I myself have witnessed
the end of those who lately harassed the wor-
shipers of God by their impious edicts. And
for this abundant thanksgivings are due to God
that through his excellent Providence all men
who observe his holy laws are gladdened by the
renewed enjoyment of peace. Hence I am
fully persuaded that everything is in the best
and safest posture, since God is vouchsafing,
through the influence of their pure and faithful
religious service, and their unity of judgment
respecting his Divine character, to gather all
men to himself.
CHAPTER XIII.
He bespeaks his Affectionate Interest for the
Christians in his Country.
" Imagine, then, with what joy I heard tidings
so accordant with my desire, that the fairest dis-
tricts of Persia are filled with those men on
whose behalf alone I am at present speaking, I
' [Valerian, who hid been a persecutor of the Christians, and
whose expedition against the Persians had terminated in his own
captivity, and subjection to every kind of insult and cruelty from
the conquerors. — Bag.^
544
CONSTANTINE.
[IV. 13.
mean the Christians. I pray, therefore, that
both you and they may enjoy abundant prosper-
ity, and that your blessings and theirs may be
in equal measure ; ^ for thus you will experience
the mercy and favor of that God who is the
Lord and Father of all. And now, because
your power is great, I commend these persons
to your protection ; because your piety is emi-
nent, I commit them to your care. Cherish
them with your wonted humanity and kindness ;
for by this proof of faith you will secure an
immeasurable benefit both to yourself and us."
CHAPTER XIV.
How the Zealotis Prayers of Constanfine ■'pro-
cured Peace to /he Christians.
Thus, the nations of the world being every-
where guided in their course as it were by the
skill of a single pilot, and acquiescing in the
administration of him who governed as the ser-
vant of God, the peace of the Roman empire
continued undisturbed, and all classes of his
subjects enjoyed a life of tranquillity and repose.
At the same time the emperor, who was con-
vinced that the prayers of godly men contributed
powerfully to the maintenance of the public wel-
fare, felt himself constrained zealously to seek
such prayers, and not only himself implored the
help and favor of God, but charged the prelates
of the churches to offer supplications on his
behalf.
CHAPTER XV.
He causes hittiself to be represented on his
Coins, and in his Portraits, in the Attitude
of Prayer.
How deeply his soul was impressed by the
power of divine faith may be understood from
the circumstance that he directed his likeness
to be stamped on the golden coin of the em-
pire with the eyes uplifted as in the posture of
prayer to God : and this money became current
throughout the Roman world. His portrait also
at full length was placed over the entrance
gates of the palaces in some cities, the eyes
upraised to heaven, and the hands outspread
as if in prayer.
CHAPTER XVI.
He forbids by Law the Placinn^ his Likeness in
Idol Tc7nples.
In this manner he represented himself, even
through the medium of painting, as habitually
' [The sense given above of this passage (which in the text is
corrupt) , is founded on the reading restored by Valesius from Theo-
engaged in prayer to God. At the same time
he forbade, by an express enactment, the setting
up of any resemblance of himself in any idol
temple, that not even the mere lineaments of
his person might receive contamination from
the error of forbidden superstition.
CHAPTER XVII.
Of his Prayers in the Palace, a?id his Reading
the Holy Scriptures.
Still nobler proofs of his piety might be dis-
cerned by those who marked how he modeled
as it were his very palace into a church of God,
and himself afforded a pattern of zeal to those
assembled therein : how he took the sacred
scriptures into his hands, and devoted himself
to the study of those divinely inspired oracles ;
after which he would offer up regular prayers
with all the members of his imperial court.
CHAPTER XVIII.
He enjoins the General Observa7ice of the Lord's
Day, and the Day of Preparation.
He ordained, too, that one day should be
regarded as a special occasion for prayer : I
mean that which is truly the first and chief of
all, the day of our Lord and Saviour. The
entire care of his household was entrusted to
deacons and other ministers consecrated to the
service of God, and distinguished by gravity of
life and every other virtue : while his trusty
body guard, strong in affection and fidelity to
his person, found in their emperor an instructor
in the practice of piety, and like him held the
Lord's salutary day in honor, and performed on
that day the devotions which he loved. The
same observance was recommended by this
blessed prince to all classes of his subjects : his
earnest desire being gradually to lead all man-
kind to the worship of God. Accordingly he
enjoined on all the subjects of the Roman em-
pire to observe the Lord's day, as a day of rest,
and also to honor the day which precedes the
Sabbath ; in memory, I suppose, of what the
Saviour of mankind is recorded to have achieved
on that day.' And since his desire was to
teach his whole army zealously to honor the
Saviour's day (which derives its name from light,
and from the sun),- he freely granted to those
doritus and Nicephorus.— ^rt^?-.] Stroth translates (ffeiti.)." So
I desire for you the Rreatest prosperity; and for them, too, 1 wish
that it may prosper as with you."
' [That IS, Friday. The passage is not very intelligible. Does
it mean that Constantino ordered this day to be distinguished in
some way from others, as the day of the Lord's crucifixion ? — /^'og']
- [The decree of Constantine fof the general observance of Sun-
ll
IV. 23.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
545
among them who were partakers of the divine
faith, leisure for attendance on the services of
the Church of God, in order that they might
be able, without impediment, to perform their
religious worship.
CHAPTER XIX.
That he directed even his Pagan Soldiers to
pray on the Lord's Day.
With regard to those who were as yet igno-
rant of divine truth, he provided by a second
statute that they should appear on each Lord's
day on an open plain near the city, and there,
at a given signal, offer to God with one accord
a prayer which they had previously learnt. He
admonished them that their confidence should
not rest in their spears, or armor, or bodily
strength, but that they should acknowledge the
supreme God as the giver of every good, and
of victory itself ; to whom they were bound to
offer their prayers with due regularity, uplifting
their hands toward heaven, and raising their
mental vision higher still to the King of heaven,
on whom they should call as the Author of vic-
tory, their Preserver, Guardian, and Helper.
The emperor himself prescribed the prayer to
be used by all his troops, commanding them
to pronounce the following words in the Latin
tongue :
CHAPTER XX.
The For^n of Prayer given by Constantine to his
Soldiers.
" We acknowledge thee the only God : we
own thee as our King, and implore thy suc-
cor. By thy favor have we gotten the victory :
through thee are we mightier than our enemies.
We render thanks for thy past benefits, and
trust thee for future blessings. Together we
pray to thee, and beseech thee long to pre-
serve to us, safe and triumphant, our emperor
Constantine and his pious sons."
Such was the duty to be performed on Sunday
by his troops, and such the prayer they were
instructed to offer up to God.
CHAPTER XXL
He orders the Sign of the Saviour's Cross to he
engraven on his Soldiers' Shields.
And not only so, but "he also caused the sign
day appears to have been issued a.d. 321, before which time both
" the old and new sabbath " were observed by Christians.
" Constantine (says Gibbon, ch. 20, note 8) styles the Lord's day
Dies soil's, a name which could not offend the ears of his Pagan
subjects." — Sag:] This has been urged as ground for saying that
Constantine did not commit himself to Christianity until the end of
life, but it only shows his tact and care in treating the diverse ele-
ments of his empire.
of the salutary trophy to be impressed on the
very shields of his soldiers ; and commanded
that his embattled forces should be preceded
in their march, not by golden images, as here-
tofore,' but only by the standard of the cross.*
CHAPTER XXn.
Of his Zeal in Prayer, and the Honor he paid
to the Feast of Easter.
The emperor himself, as a sharer in the holy
mysteries of our religion, would seclude himself
daily at a stated hour in the innermost chambers
of his palace ; and there, in solitary converse
with his God, would kneel in humble supplica-
tion, and entreat the blessings of which he stood
in need. But especially at the salutary feast of
Easter, his religious diligence was redoubled ;
he fulfilled as it were the duties of a hierophant
with every energy of his mind and body, and
outvied all others in the zealous celebration of
this feast. He changed, too, the holy night
vigil into a brightness like that of day, by caus-
ing waxen tapers of great length to be lighted
throughout the city : besides which, torches
everywhere diffused their light, so as to impart
to this mystic vigil a brilliant splendor beyond
that of day.^ As soon as day itself returned, in
imitation of our Saviour's gracious acts, he
opened a liberal hand to his subjects of every
nation, province, and people, and lavished
abundant bounties on all.
CHAPTER XXHL
How he forbade Idolatrotis Worship, but honored
Martyrs and the Church Festivals.
Such were his sacred ministrations in the ser-
vice of his God. At the same time, his subjects,
both civil and military, throughout the empire,
found a barrier everyAvhere opposed against idol
worship, and every kind of sacrifice forbidden.^
A statute was also passed, enjoining the due
observance of the Lord's day, and transmitted
to the governors of every province, who under-
took, at the emperor's command, to respect the
days commemorative of martyrs, and duly to
honor the festal seasons in the churches : ^
and all these intentions were fulfilled to the
emperor's entire satisfaction.
' Compare for these, Yates, article Signa Militaria in Smith,
Diet. Gr. and Rom. Ant., where there is given cut of the arch of
Constantine showing such standards.
' Compare Venables, Easter, Ceremonies of, in Smith and
Cheetham, Diet., for account of the customs of the day.
' [This prohibition must be limited to private sacrifices. See
Bk. II., ch. 45, note. — Bag.]
- " Str. rightly translates ' and honored the festal days by pub-
lic gatherings,' while Val. [and Bag.] falsely renders ' duly hon-
ored the festival seasons of the church.' *' — Hein.
VOL. \.
N n
546'
CONSTANTINE.
[IV. 24.
CHAPTER XXIV.
That he described himself to be a Bishop, in
Charge of Affairs External to the Church.
Hence it was not without reason that once, on
the occasion of his entertaining a company of
bishops, he let fall the expression, " that he him-
self too was a bishop," addressing them in my
hearing in the following words: "You are
bishops whose jurisdiction is within the Church :
I also am a bishop, ordained by God to over-
look whatever is external to the Church." ' And
truly his measures corresponded with his words ;
for he watched over his subjects with an epis-
copal care, and exhorted them as far as in him
lay to follow a godly life.
CHAPTER XXV.
Prohibition of Sacrifices, of Mystic Rites, Com-
bats of G/adiators, also the Licentious JVorship
of the Nile.
Consistently with this zeal he issued succes-
sive laws and ordinances, forbidding any to offer
sacrifice to idols, to consult diviners, to erect
images, or to pollute the cities with the sanguin-
ary combats of gladiators.^ And inasmuch as
the Egyptians, especially those of Alexandria,
had been accustomed to honor their river
through a priesthood composed of effeminate
men, a further law was passed commanding the
extermination of the whole class as vicious,
that no one might thenceforward be found
tainted with the like impurity. And whereas
the superstitious inhabitants apprehended that
the river would in consequence withhold its
customary flood, God himself showed his ap-
proval of the emperor's law by ordering all
things in a manner quite contrary to their ex-
pectation. For those who had defiled the cities
by their vicious conduct were indeed seen no
more ; but the river, as if the country through
which it flowed had been purified to receive it,
rose higher than ever before, and completely
overflowed the country with its fertilizing
streams : thus effectually admonishing the de-
luded people to turn from imi)ure men, and
ascribe their prosperity to him alone who is the
Giver of all good.
' This saying of Constantinc lias occasioned a deal of exegesis
and conjecture. Compare monograph of Walch mentioned under
Literature in the Prolegomena for discussion and references to
other older literature.
' The most accessible reference for getting a glimpse of the leg-
islation of Constantine in these and similar regards is the section,
T/ie alteratipH in general ami petial /i\^is!ation in Wordsworth's
Constantinus I., in Smith and Wace, Jh'ct. 1 (1877). This section is
on p. (>'i(>-T. Compare alsci the laws themselves as gathered in
Migne, Patrol, lat. vol. 8. Compare also Prolegomena for general
statement of the value of his legislation ami his reputation as legis-
lator.
CHAPTER XXVI.
Amendment of the Law in Force ir spec tin q
Childless Persons, and of the Law of iVills.
So numerous, indeed, were the benefits of this
kind conferred by the emperor on every prov-
ince, as to afford ample materials to any who
might desire to record them. Among these
may be instanced those laws which he entirely
remodelled, and established on a more equitable
basis : the nature of which reform may be briefly
and easily explained. The childless were pun-
ished under the old law with the forfeiture of
their hereditary property, a merciless statute,
which dealt with them as positive criminals.
The emperor annulled this, and decreed that
those so circumstanced should inherit. He
regulated the question on the ]")rinciples of
equity and justice, arguing willful transgressors
should be chastised with the penalties their
crimes deserve. But nature herself denies chil-
dren to many, who long, perhaps, for a numer-
ous offspring, but are disappointed of their hope
by bodily infirmity. Others continue childless,
not from any dislike of posterity, but because
their ardent love of philosophy ^ renders them
averse to the conjugal union. Women, too,
consecrated to the service of God, have main-
tained a i)ure and spotless virginity, and have
devoted themselves, soul and body, to a life of
entire chastity and holiness. What then?
Should this conduct be deemed worthy of pun-
ishment, or rather of admiration and praise ;
since to desire this state is in itself honorable,
and to maintain it surpasses the power of un-
assisted nature ? Surely those whose bodily
infirmity destroys their hope of offspring are
worthy of pity, not of punishment : and ,he who
devotes himself to a higher object calls not for
chastisement, but especial admiration. On such
principles of sound reason did the emperor
rectify the defects of this law. Again, with
regard to the wills of dying persons, the old
laws had ordained that they should be expressed,
even at the latest breath, as it were, in certain
definite words, and had prescribed the exact
form and terms to be employed. This prac-
tice had occasioned many fraudulent attempts
to hinder the intentions of the deceased from
' [The word " philosophy," her^ and in the 28th chapter, plainly
indicates that virginity which was so highly honored in the earlier
ages of Christianity, and tlie undue exaltation of which was produc-
tive, necessarily, of evils which it is scarcely possible to estimate at
their full extent. — lia^J\ On the growing prevalence of the prac-
tice of virginity compare Hatch, I'irgiiis, in Smith and Cheetham,
Diet. Put this note belongs rather to the paragraph below; for the
author does not refer to Christian virginity, but primarily to philo-
sophical celib.acy in this instance. The Neo-Platonic philosophy of
the times, through its doctrine of the purification of the soul by its
liberation from the body or sensuous things, taught celibacy and
ascetic practices generally. So Plotinus (d. 270 a.d.) practiced
and taught to a degree, and Porphyry (d. 301 + ) more explicitly.
Compare rich literature on Neo-Platonism, and conveniently Zcller,
Outlines 0/ Cr, Fhilos, Lond., 1886, p. yiit-i^-i, pasiim.
IV. 29.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
547
being carried into full effect. As soon as our
emperor was aware of these abuses, he reformed
this law likewise, declaring that a dying man
ought to be permitted to indicate his last wishes
in as few words as i)ossible, and in whatever
terms he pleased ; and to set forth his will in
any written form ; or even by word of mouth,
provided it were done in the presence of proper
witnesses, who might be competent faithfully to
discharge their trust.
CHAPTER XXVII.
Among Other Enactments, lie i/eerees that no
Christian sliall suwe to a Je7v, and affirms
tlie J'alidity of the Decisions of Councils.
He also passed a law to the effect that no
Christian should remain in servitude to a Jewish
master, on the ground that it could not be right
tlvit those whom the Saviour had ransomed
should be subjected to the yoke of slavery by
a people who had slain the prophets and the
Lord himself. If any were found hereafter in
these circumstances, the slave was to be set at
liberty, and the master punished by a fine.
He likewise added the sanction of his author-
ity to the decisions of bishops passed at their
synods, and forbade the provincial governors to
annul any of their decrees : for he rated the
priests of God at a higher value than any judge
whatever. These and a thousand similar pro-
visions did he enact for the benefit of his sub-
jects ; but there is not time now to give a special
description of them, such as might convey an
accurate idea of his imperial wisdom in these
respects : nor need I now relate at length, how,
as a devoted servant of the Supreme God, he
employed himself from morning until night in
seeking objects for his beneficence, and how
equally and universally kind he was to all.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
His Gifts to ike Churches, and Bounties to
Virgins and to the Poor.
His liberality, however, was most especially
exercised on behalf of the churches of God. In
some cases he granted lands, in others he issued
supplies of food for the support of the poor, of
orphan children, and widows ; besides which, he
evinced much care and forethought in fully pro-
viding the naked and destitute with clothing.
He distinguished, however, with most special
honor those who had devoted their lives to the
practice of Divine philosophy. Hence his re-
spect, little short of veneration, for God's most
holy and ever virgin choir : for he felt assured
that the God to whom such persons devoted
themselves was himself an inmate of their souls.
CHAPTER XXIX.
Of Cfl?istan tine's Discourses and Declamations.^
For himself, he sometimes passed sleepless
nights in furnishing his mind with Divine knowl-
edge : and much of his time was spent in com-
posing discourses, many of which he delivered
in public ; for he conceived it to be incumbent
on him to govern his subjects by appealing to
their reason, and to secure in all respects a ra-
tional obedience to his authority. Hence he
would sometimes himself evoke an assembly, on
which occasions vast multitudes attended, in
the hope of hearing an emperor sustain the part
of a philosopher. And if in the course of his
speech any occasion offered of touching on
sacred topics, he immediately stood erect, and
with a grave aspect and subdued tone of voice
seemed reverently to be initiating his auditors
in the mysteries of the Divine doctrine : and
when they greeted him with shouts of acclama-
tion, he would direct them by his gestures to
raise their eyes to heaven, and reserve their
admiration for the Supreme King alone, and
honor him with adoration and praise. He
usually divided the subjects of his address, first
thoroughly exposing the error of polytheism,
and proving the superstition of the Gentiles to
be mere fraud, and a cloak for impiety. He
then would assert the sole sovereignty of God :
passing thence to his Providence, both general
and particular. Proceeding next to the dispen-
sation of salvation, he would demonstrate its
necessity, and adaptation to the nature of the
case ; entering next in order on the doctrine of
the Divine judgment.^ And here especially he
appealed most powerfully to the consciences of
his hearers, while he denounced the rapacious
and violent, and those who were slaves to an
inordinate thirst of gain. Nay, he caused some
of his own acquaintance who were present to
feel the severe lash of his words, and to stand
with downcast eyes in the consciousness of guilt,
while he testified against them in the clearest
and most impressive terms that they would have
an account to render of their deeds to God.
He reminded them that God himself had given
him the empire of the world, portions of which
he himself, acting on the same Divine principle,
had intrusted to their government ; but that all
would in due time be alike summoned to give
account of their actions to the Supreme Sover-
eign of all. Such was his constant testimony ;
^ Compare Prolegomena, under Character and Writings.
I ^ Compare Prolegomena, and the Oration appended to this work.
N n 2
543
CONSTANTINE.
[IV. 29.
such his admonition and instruction. And he
himself both felt and uttered these sentiments
in the genuine confidence of faith : but his hear-
ers were little disposed to learn, and deaf to
sound advice ; receiving his words indeed with
loud applause, but induced by insatiable cupid-
ity practically to disregard them.
CHAPTER XXX.
That he marked otit before a Covetous Alan
the Measure of a Grave, atid so put him
to Shame.
On one occasion he thus personally addressed
one of his courtiers : " How far, my friend, are
we to carry our inordinate desires?" Then
drawing the dimensions of a human figure with
a lance which he happened to have in his hand,
he continued : " Though thou couldst obtain
the whole wealth of this world, yea, the whole
world itself, thou wilt carry with thee at last no
more than this little spot which I have marked
out, if indeed even that be thine." ^ Such were
the words and actions of this blessed prince ;
and though at the time he failed to reclaim any
from their evil ways, yet notwithstanding the
course of events afforded evident proof that his
admonitions were more like Divine prophecies
than mere words.
CHAPTER XXXI.
That he was derided because of Ids Excessive
Clemency}
Meantime, since there was no fear of capital
punishment to deter from the commission of
crime, for the emperor himself was uniformly
inclined to clemency, and none of the provin-
cial governors visited offenses with their proper
penalties, this state of things drew with it no
small degree of blame on the general adminis-
tration of the empire ; whether justly or not, let
every one form his own judgment : for myself,
I only ask permission to record the fact.
CHAPTER XXXH.
Of Constantino' s Oration which he 7vrote to the
Assembly of the Saints}
The emperor was in the habit of composing
his orations in the Latin tongue, from which
they were translated into Greek by interpreters
[' Since it is uncertain whether thou wilt be buried in the ground,
or consumed by fire, or drowned in the sea, or devoured by wild'
beasts (Valesius in loc.)- — ^'"kA
' Compare Prolegomena, under Character.
' Compare the Oration itself following this work.
appointed for this special service. One of the
discourses thus translated I intend to annex, by
way of specimen, to this present work, that one,
I mean, which he inscribed " To the assembly
of the saints," and dedicated to the Church of
God, that no one may have ground for deeming
my testimony on this head mere empty praise.
CHAPTER XXXni.
Ho7v he listened standing to Eusebius'' Dec-
lamation in Honor of our Saviour's Sepul-
chre.
One act, however, I must by no means omit
to record, which this admirable prince per-
formed in my own presence. On one occasion,
emboldened by the confident assurance I enter-
tained of his piety, I had begged permission to
pronounce a discourse on the subject of our
Saviour's sepulchre in his hearing. With this
request he most readily complied, and in the
midst of a large number of auditors, in the in-
terior of the palace itself, he stood and listened
with the rest. I entreated him, but in vain, to
seat himself on the imperial throne which stood
near : he continued with fixed attention to
weigh the topics of my discourse, and gave his
own testimony to the truth of the theological
doctrines it contained. After some time had
passed, the oration being of considerable length,
I was myself desirous of concluding ; but this
he would not permit, and exhorted me to pro-
ceed to the very end. On my again entreating
him to sit, he in his turn was displeased and
said that it was not right to listen in a careless
manner to the discussion of doctrines relating
to God ; and again, that this posture was good
and profitable to himself, since it was reverent to
stand while listening to sacred truths. Having,
therefore, concluded my discourse, I returned
home, and resumed my usual occupations.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
That he wrote to Eusebius respecting Easter,
and respecting Copies of the Holy Scriptures.
Ever careful for the welfare of the churches
of God, the emperor addressed me personally
in a letter on the means of providing copies of
the inspired oracles, and also on the subject of
the most holy feast of Easter. For I had my-
self dedicated to him an exposition of the mys
tical import of that feast ; and the manner in
which he honored me with a reply may be
understood by any one who reads the following
letter.
IV- 37-]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
549
CHAPTER XXXV.
( 'onsfantine^s Letter to Eusebius, in praise of
his Discourse concerning Easter.
" Victor CoNSTA^^^^fus, Maximus Augustus,
lo Eusebius.
" It is indeed an arduous task, and beyond
the ])o\ver of language itself, worthily to treat of
the mysteries of Christ, and to explain in a
iltting manner the controversy respecting the
K ist of Easter, its origin as well as its precious
aiul toilsome accompUshment.' For it is not in
the power even of those who are able to appre-
hend them, adequately to describe the things of
Cod. I am, notwithstanding, filled with ad-
miration of your learning and zeal, and have not
only myself read your work with pleasure, but
have given directions, according to your own
desire, that it be communicated to many sincere
followers of our holy religion. Seeing, then,
with what pleasure we receive favors of this
kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden
us more frequently with those compositions, to
the practice of which, indeed, you confess your-
self to have been trained from an early period,
so that I am urging a willing man, as they say,
in exhorting you to your customary pursuits.
And certainly the high and confident judgment
we entertain is a proof that the person who has
translated your writings into the Latin tongue
is in no respect incompetent to the task, impos-
sible though it be that such version should fully
equal the excellence of the works themselves.
God preserve you, beloved brother." Such was
his letter on this subject : and that which related
to the providing of copies of the Scriptures for
reading in the churches was to the following
purport.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Constantine's Letter to Eusebius on the Prepara-
tion of Copies of the LLoly Scriptures.
" Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus,
to Eusebius.
" It happens, through the favoring providence
of God our Saviour, that great numbers have
united themselves to the most holy church in
the city which is called by my name. It seems,
therefore, highly requisite, since that city is
rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other re-
spects, that the number of churches should also
be increased. Do you, therefore, receive with
all readiness my determination on this behalf.
I have thought it expedient to instruct your
Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred
1 [i.e. through the sufferings and resurrection of Christ. — Bag,^
Scriptures, the provision and use of which you
know to be most needful for the instruction of
the Church, to be written on prepared parch-
ment in a legible manner, and in a convenient,
portable form, by professional transcribers thor-
oughly practiced in their art.' The catholicus ^
of the diocese has also received instructions by
letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish
all things necessary for the preparation of such
copies ; and it will be for you to take special
care that they be completed with as little delay
as possible."' You have authority also, in virtue
of this letter, to use two of the public carriages
for their conveyance, by which arrangement the
copies when fairly written will most easily be
forwarded for my personal inspection ; and one
of the deacons of your church may be intrusted
with this service, who, on his arrival here, shall
experience my liberality. God preserve you,
beloved brother ! "
CHAPTER XXXVII.
ILow the Copies were provided.
Such were the emperor's commands, which
were followed by the immediate execution of
the work itself, which we sent him in magnifi-
cent and elaborately bound volumes of a three-
fold and fourfold form.' This fact is attested
by another letter, which the emperor wrote in
acknowledgment, in which, having heard that
the city Constantia in our country, the inhabi-
tants of which had been more than commonly
devoted to superstition, had been impelled by
a sense of religion to abandon their past idola-
try, he testified his joy, and approval of their
conduct.
1 Molz. in a note regards these as lectionaries, but they are usu-
ally thought to have been regular copies of the Scriptures in Greek
— Septuagint and N. T., and the Codex Sinaiticus has been thought
to be one of them. It dates from not earlier than the time of Euse-
bius, as it contains the Eusebian Canons, but yet from the fourth
century. Altogether it is not impossible that it was one of these,
and at all events a description of it, extracted from Scriveners {In-
troduction, 1883, p. 88 sq.), will be a fair illustration. "13J inches
in length by 145 inches high." " Beautiful vellum." " Each page
comprises four columns, with 48 lines in each column." " Contin-
uous noble uncials." " Arranged in quires of four or three sheets."
It is evident from comparison of several quotations of Eusebius that
the copy of the New Testament which he himself used was not
closely related with the Sinaitic text, unless the various readings
headed by this MS. are all mistakes originating with it. Compare
allusions in the notes to such different readings. The last clause,
although in the text of Heinichen, is of doubtful authority.
2 This word is a transcription, rendered " Procurator" hy Bag.,
and is perhaps corresponding to that official (cf. Long, article
Fiscus, in Smith, Diet. Gr. and R. Atit.). But this transcription is
recognized (cf. Ffoulkes, Catholicus, in Smith and Cheetham,
Diet.).
•> The fact that the Sinaiticus exhibits two or three hands suggests
that it was prepared with rapidity, and the having various scribes
was a way to speed.
' [The parchment copies were usually arranged in quaternions,
i.e. four leaves made up together, as the ternions consisted of three
leaves. The quaternions each contained sixteen pages, the ternions
twelve (Valesius in loc). — Bag.^ So probably, although the three-
columned form of the Sinaiticus and the four of the Vaticanus sug-
gest a possible other meaning.
550
CONSTANTINE.
[IV. 38.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
Hoiu the Market-town of Gaza was made a
City for its Profession of Christianity, and
received the Name of Constantia.
For in fact the place now called Constantia,
in the province of Palestine, having embraced
the saving religion, was distinguished both by
the favor of God, and by special honor from the
emperor, being now for the first time raised to
the rank of a city, and receiving the more hon-
ored name of his ])ious sister in exchange for
its former appellation.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
That a Place in Pha-nicia also was made a City,
and in Other Cities Idolatry was abolished,
and Churches built.
A SIMILAR change was effected in several
other cities ; for instance, in that town of Phoe-
nicia which received its name from that of the
emperor, and the inhabitants of which com-
mitted their innumerable idols to the flames,
and adopted in their stead the i)rinciples of the
saving faith. Numbers, too, in the other prov-
inces, both in the cities and the country, became
willing inquirers after the saving knowledge of
God ; destroyed as worthless things the images
of every kind which they had heretofore held
most sacred ; voluntarily demolished the lofty
temples and shrines which contained them ; and,
renouncing their former sentiments, or rather
errors, commenced and completed entirely new
churches. But since it is not so much my prov-
ince to give a circumstantial detail of the actions
of this pious prince, as it is theirs wlio have been
privileged to enjoy his society at all times, I shall
content myself with briefly recording such facts
as have come to my own personal knowledge,
before I proceed to notice the last days of his
life.
CHAPTER XL.
That havini:; conferred the Dignity of Cccsars on
his Three Sons at tJic Three Decennial Periods
of his Reign, he dedicated the Church at
Jerusalem.
By this time the thirtieth year of his reign was
completed. In the course of this period, his
three sons had been admitted at different times
as his colleagues in the empire. The first, Con-
stantinus, who bore his father's name, obtained
this distinction about the tenth year of his reign.
Constantius, the second son, so called from his
grandfather, was proclaimed Caesar about the
twentieth, while Constans, the third, whose
name expresses the firmness and stability of
his character, was advanced to the same dignity
at the thirtieth anniversary of his father's reign. ^
Having thus reared a threefold offspring, a Trin-
ity," as it were, of pious sons, and having re-
ceived them severally at each decennial period
to a participation in his imperial authority, he
judged the festival of his Tricennalia to be a fit
occasion for thanksgiving to the Sovereign Lord
of all, at the same time believing that the dedi-
cation of the church which his zealous magnifi-
cence had erected at Jerusalem might advanta-
geously be performed.
CHAPTER XLI.
That in the ineantinie he ordered a Council to
be convened at Tyre, because of Controversies
raised i7t Egypt.
Meanwhile ♦that spirit of envy which is the
enemy of all good, like a dark cloud intercept-
ing the sun's brightest rays, endeavored to mar
the joy of this festivity, by again raising conten-
tions to disturb the tranquillity of the F^gyptian
churches. • Our divinely favored emperor, how-
ever, once more convened a synod composed
of many bishops, and set them as it Avere in
armed array, like the host of God, against this
malignant spirit, having commanded their pres-
ence from the whole of Egypt and Libya, from
Asia, and from Europe, in order, first, to decide
the questions in dispute, and afterwards to per-
form the dedication of the sacred edifice above
mentioned. Pie enjoined them, by the way, to
adjust their differences at the capital city of
Phoenicia, reminding them that they had no
right, while harboring feelings of mutual ani-
mosity, to engage in the service of (iod, since
his law expressly forbids those who are at
variance to offer their gift until they have first
become reconciled and mutually disposed to
peace. Such were the salutary ]>recepts which
the emperor continually kept vividly before his
own mind, and in accordance with which he
admonished them to undertake their present
duties in a spirit of perfect unanimity and con-
cord, in a letter to the following purport.
CHAPTER XLII.
Constantine's Letter to the Council at Tyre.
"ViClOR CONSI'AXTINUS, MaXIMUS AUGUSTUS,
to tiie holy Council at Tyre.
' These arc general dales; "about" the tenth, etc., would have
been more e.\act. Compare Prolegomena, under Life.
- \Vp\.a.ha^ Adyui. Well may the old English Translator remark
nn this, " An odd expression." We may go further, and denounce
il as an instance of the senseless and profane adulation to which our
author, perhaps in the spirit of his age, seems to have been but loo
much inclined. — Bag.l
I'
IV. 44]
TH1-: LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
551
"Surely it would best consist with and best
become the prosperity of these our times, that
the Catholic Church should be undivided, and
the servants of Christ be at this present moment
clear from all reproach. Since, however, there
are those who, carried away by a baleful and
furious spirit of contention (for I will not charge
them with intentionally leading a life unworthy
of their profession), are endeavoring to create
that general confusion which, in my judgment,
is the most pernicious of all evils ; I exhort you,
forward as you already are, to meet together
and form a synod without delay : to defend
those who need protection ; to administer reme-
dies to your brethren who are in peril ; to recall
the divided members to unity of judgment ; to
rectify errors while opportunity is yet allowed :
that thus you may restore to so many provinces
that due measure of concord which, strange and
sad anomaly ! the arrogance of a few individuals
has destroyed. And I believed that all are alike
persuaded that this course is at the same time
pleasing to Almighty God (as well as the highest
object of my own desires), and will bring no
small honor to yourselves, should you be suc-
cessful in restoring peace. Delay not, then,
but hasten with redoubled zeal to terminate the
present dissensions in a manner becoming the
occasion, by assembling together in that spirit
of true sincerity and faith which the Saviour
whom we serve especially demands from us, I
may almost say with an audible voice, on all
occasions. No proof of pious zeal on my part
shall be wanting. Already have I done all to
which my attention was directed by your letters.
I have sent to those bishops whose presence
you desired, that they may share your counsels.
I have despatched Dionysius, a man of consular
rank, who will both remind those prelates of
their duty who are bound to attend the Council
with you, and will himself be there to superin-
tend the proceedings, but especially to main-
tain good order. Meantime should any one,
though I deem it most improbable, venture on
this occasion to violate my command, and refuse
his attendance, a messenger shall be despatched
forthwith to banish that person in virtue of an
imperial edict, and to teach him that it does
not become him to resist an emperor's decrees
when issued in defense of truth. For the rest,
it will be for your Holinesses, unbiased either
by enmity or favor, but consistently with eccle-
siastical and apostolic order, to devise a fitting
remedy whether it be for positive offenses or
for unpremeditated errors ; in order that you
may at once free the Church from all re-
proach, relieve my anxiety, and, by restoring
the blessings of peace to those who are now
divided, procure the highest honor for your-
selves. God preserve you, beloved brethren ! " ^
CHAPTER XLIIl.
Bishops from all the Provinces attended the
Dedication of the Church at Jerusalem.
No sooner had these injunctions been carried
into effect, than another emissary arrived with
desi)atches from the emperor, and an urgent
admonition to the Council to hasten their jour-
ney to Jerusalem without delay.^ Accordingly
they all took their departure from the province
of Phoenicia, and proceeded to their destination,
availing themselves of the public means of trans-
l)ort. Thus Jerusalem became the gathering
point for distinguished prelates from every prov-
ince, and the whole city was thronged by a
vast assemblage of the servants of God. The
Macedonians had sent the bishop of their me-
tropolis ; - the Pannonians and Moesians the
fairest of God's youthful flock among them.
A holy prelate from Persia too was there, deeply
versed in the sacred oracles ; while Bithynian
and Thracian bishops graced the Council with
their presence ; nor were the most illustrious
from Cilicia wanting, nor the chief of the Cap-
padocians, distinguished above all for learning
and eloquence. In short, the whole of Syria
and Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and Arabia, Pales-
tine, Egypt, and Libya, with the dwellers in the
Thebaid, all contributed to swell the mighty
concourse of God's ministers, followed as they
were by vast numbers from every province.
They were attended by an imperial escort," and
officers of trust had also been sent from the pal-
ace itself, with instructions to heighten the splen-
dor of the festival at the emperor's expense.
CHAPTER XLIV.
Of their Reception by the Notary Marianas ;
the Distribution of Money to the Poor ; and
Offerings to the Church.
The director and chief of these officers was a
most useful servant of the emperor, a man emi-
nent for faith and piety, and thoroughly ac-
quainted with the Divine word, who had been
honorably conspicuous by his profession of god-
liness during the time of the tyrants' power, and
therefore was deservedly entrusted with the
arrangement of the present proceedings. Ac-
cordingly, in faithful obedience to the emperor's
commands, he received the assembly with cour-
teous hospitality, and entertained them with
1 Compare on the Synod of Tyre (held 335 A.D.), Hefele, Hist.
of Councils, 1 (1876), 17-26.
1 Compare Hefele, 2. 26-7.
- [Alexander, bishop of Thessalonica. By the Pannonian and
ISIcesian bishops are meant Ursacius and Valens, leaders of the
Arian party; by the Bithynian and Thracian, Theogonius of Nicaea,
and Theodorus of Perinthus (Valesius) . — Bag^^
3 " The emperor showed himself very attentive to them." — Molz.
55^
CONSTANTINE.
tiv. 44.
feasts and banquets on a scale of great splendor.
He also distributed lavish supplies of money
and clothing among the naked and destitute,
and the multitudes of both sexes who suffered
from want of food and the common necessaries
of Hfe. Finally, he enriched and beautified the
church itself throughout with offerings of impe-
rial magnificence, and thus fully accomplished
the service he had been commissioned to per-
form.
CHAPTER XLV.
Various Discourses by the Assembled Bishops ;
also by Eiisehius, the Writer of this History.
Meantiinie the festival derived additional luster
both from the prayers and discourses of the min-
isters of God, some of whom extolled the pious
emperor's willing devotion to the Saviour of man-
kind, and dilated on the magnificence of the edi-
fice which he had raised to his memory. Others
afforded, as it were, an intellectual feast to the
ears of all present, by public disquisitions on
the sacred doctrines of our religion. Others in-
terpreted passages of holy Scripture, and un-
folded their hidden meaning ; while such as
were unequal to these efforts presented a blood-
less sacrifice and mystical service to God in the
prayers which they offered for general peace, for
the Church of God, for the emperor himself as
the instrumental cause of so many blessings, and
for his pious sons. I myself too, unworthy as I
was of such a privilege, pronounced various pub-
lic orations in honor of this solemnity, wherein
1 pardy explained by a written description the
details of the imperial edifice, and partly en-
deavored to gather from the prophetic visions
apt illustrations of the symbols it displayed.^
Thus joyfully was the festival of dedication
celebrated in the thirtieth year of our emperor's
reign.
CHAPTER XLVI.
That Euscbiiis afterwards delivered his Descrip-
tion of the Church of the Saviour, and a Tri-
cennial Oration before Constantine himself.
The structure of the church of our Saviour,
the form of his sacred cave, the splendor of the
work itself, and the numberless offerings in gold,
' [Eusebius gives us no example of his application of Scripture
in this case. His commentator Valesius refers to Zeph. lii. 8
(LXX), Aia toOto UTTOfxeii'di' \i.t, Atytt Ki/pio?, cU ii/j-ipav iva-
o-Taereui? fiov fi? ixapTvpiov, and tells us that Cyril of Jerusalem, in
his fourth Homily, explains this passage in Zephaniali of the Mar-
tyrium, or Basilica, which Constantine built on the spot of the
Lord's resurrection. Let any one examine tfie whole passage (al-
lowing for the mistake of one Hebrew word for another by tlie
LXX), and say, if this be a fair specimen, what we are to think
of the Fathers of the fourth century as interpreters of Scripture. See
also Rk. 3, ch. 33,note. — Art^.] "Interpreted pertinent passages
from the prophets." — J/r. and Molz.
and silver, and precious stones, I have described
to the best of my ability, and dedicated to the
emperor in a separate treatise, which on a fitting
opportunity I shall append to this present work.
I shall add to it also that oration on his Tricen-
nalia which shortly afterwards, having traveled
to the city which bears his name, I delivered in
the emperor's own presence.^ This was the
second opportunity afforded me of glorifying the
Supreme God in the imperial palace itself: and
on this occasion my pious hearer evinced the
greatest joy, as he afterwards testified, when he
entertained the bishops then present, and loaded
them with distinctions of every kind.
CHAPTER XLVH.
That the Council at Niccea 7uas held in the
Twentieth, the Dedication of the Church at
Jerusalem in the Thirtieth, Year of Constan-
tine's Reign.
This second synod the emperor convened at
Jerusalem, being the greatest of which we have
any knowledge, next to the first which he had
summoned at the famous Bithynian city. That
indeed was a triumphal assembly, held in the
twentieth year of his reign, an occasion of
thanksgiving for victory over his enemies in the
very city which bears the name of victory.^ The
present meeting added luster to the thirtieth
anniversary, during which the emperor dedi-
cated the church at the sepulchre of our Saviour,
as a peace-offering to God, the giver of all good.
CHAPTER XLVni.
That Constantine ivas displeased with one 7uho
praised him excessively.
And now that all these ceremonies were com-
pleted, and the divine qualities of the emperor's
character continued to be the theme of universal
praise, one of God's ministers presumed so far
as in his own presence to pronounce him
blessed, as having been counted worthy to hold
absolute and universal empire in this life, and
as being destined to share the empire of the
Son of God in the world to come. These
words, however, Constantine heard with indig-
nation, and forbade the speaker to hold such
language, exhorting him rather to pray earnestly
on his behalf, that whether in this life or in that
which is to come, he might be found worthy to
be a servant of God.^
' The Oration is appended to this work.
' Nica;a.
' Vet Eusebius himself in his Oration uses language almost as
obnoxious, and records tlint Constantine was much pleased with it.
The difference was probably one of gracefulness.
IV. 52.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
553
CHAPTER XLIX.
Marriage of his Son Constantiits Cicsar.
On the completion of the thirtieth year of his
reign he solemnized the marriage of his second
son,' having concluded that of his first-born
long before. This was an occasion of great joy
and festivity, the emperor himself attending on
his son at the ceremony, and entertaining the
guests of both sexes, the men and women in
distinct and separate companies, with sumptuous
hospitality. Rich presents likewise were liber-
ally distributed among the cities and people.
CHAPTER L.
Embassy and Presents from the Indians.
About this time ambassadors from the Indians,
who inhabit the distant regions of the East, ar-
rived with presents consisting of many varieties
of brilliant precious stones, and animals differ-
ing in species from those known to us. These
offerings they presented to the emperor, thus
allowing that his sovereignty extended even to
the Indian Ocean, and that the princes of their
country, who rendered homage to him both by
paintings and statues, acknowledged his imperial
and paramount authority. Thus the Eastern
Indians now submitted to his sway, as the
Britons of the Western Ocean had done at the
commencement of his reign.
CHAPTER LI.
That Constantine divided the Empire betiveen
his Three Sons, 7C'hom he had instructed in
Politics and Religion.
Having thus established his power in the
opposite extremities of the world, he divided
the whole extent of his dominions, as though
he were allotting a patrimonial inheritance to
the dearest objects of his regard, among his
three sons. To the eldest he assigned his
grandfather's portion; to the second, the em-
pire of the East ; to the third, the countries
which lie between these two divisions.' And
being desirous of furnishing his children with
an inheritance truly valuable and salutary to
their souls, he had been careful to imbue them
1 His second son by Fausta. Crispus seems now to be counted
out. This was not the famous Eusebia who was his second wife.
1 [" The younger Constantine was appointed to hold his court in
Gau!; and his brother Constantius exchanged that department, the
ancient patrimony of their father, for the more opulent, but less
martial, countries of the East. Italy, the Western Illyricum, and
Africa, were accustomed to revere Constans, the third of his sons,
as the representative of the great Constantine " (Gibbon, Decline
and Fall, ch. i8) . — Bag.'\ Compare Prolegomena, under Life,
with true religious principles, being himself their
guide to the knowledge of sacred things, and
also appointing men of approved piety to be
their instructors. At the same time he assigned
them the most accomplished teachers of secular
learning, by some of whom they were taught
the arts of war, while they were trained by
others in political, and by others again in legal
science. To each moreover was granted a truly
royal retinue, consisting of infantry, spearmen,
and body guards, with every other kind of mili-
tary force ; commanded respectively by captains,
tribunes, and generals,' of whose warlike skill
and devotion to his sons the emperor had had
previous experience.
CHAPTER LIL
That after they had reached Man's Estate he
was their Guide in Piety.
As long as the Caesars were of tender years,
they were aided by suitable advisers in the man-
agement of public affairs ; but on their arrival
at the age of manhood their father's instructions
alone sufficed. When present he proposed to
them his own example, and admonished them
to follow his pious course : in their absence he
furnished them by letter with rules of conduct
suited to their imperial station, the first and
greatest of which was an exhortation to value
the knowledge and worship of the Sovereign
Lord of all more than wealth, nay, more than
empire itself. At length he permitted them to
direct the public administration of the empire
without control, making it his first request that
they would care for the interests of the Church
of God, and boldly profess themselves disciples
of Christ. Thus trained, and excited to obe-
dience not so much by precept as by their own
voluntary desire for virtue, his sons more than
fulfilled the admonitions of their father, devot-
ing their earnest attention to the service of God,
and observing the ordinances of the Church even
in the palace itself, with all the members of their
households.' For their father's forethought had
provided that all the attendants of his sons
should be Christians. And not only so, but the
mihtary officers of highest rank, and those who
had the control of public business, were profes-
sors of the same faith : for the emperor placed
confidence in the fidelity of men devoted to the
service of God, as in a strong and sure defense.
When our thrice blessed prince had completed
these arrangements, and thus secured order and
tranquillity throughout the empire, God, the dis-
penser of all blessings, judged it to be the fitting
2 Centurions, generals, tribunes.
' The expression is over strong. Constantius, e.g., was not bap-
tized until just before his death.
554
CONSTANTINE.
[IV. 52.
lime to translate him to a better inheritance, and
summoned him to pay the debt of nature.
CHAPTER LIII.
Having reigned about Thirty-hvo Years, and
lived above Sixty, he still had a Sound Body.
He completed the time of his reign in two
and thirty years, wanting a few months and
days,' and his whole life extended to about
twice that period. At this age he still possessed
a sound and vigorous body, free from all blem-
ish, and of more than youthful vivacity ; a noble
mien, and strength equal to any exertion ; so
that he was able to join in martial exercises, to
ride, endure the fatigues of travel, engage in
battle, and erect trophies over his conquered
enemies, besides gaining those bloodless victories
by which he was wont to triumph over those
who opposed him.-
CHAPTER LIV.
Of those who abused his Extreme Benevolence
for Avarice and Hypocrisy.
In like manner his mental ' qualities reached
the highest point of human perfection. Indeed
he was distinguished by every excellence of
character, but especially by benevolence ; a
virtue, however, which subjected him to censure
from many, in consequence of the baseness of
wicked men, who ascribed their own crimes to
the emperor's forbearance, v In truth I can my-
self bear testimony to the grievous evils which
prevailed during these times ; I mean the vio-
lence of rapacious and unprincipled men, who
preyed on all classes of society alike, and the
scandalous hypocrisy of those who crept into
the Church, and assumed the name and charac-
ter of Christians. His own benevolence and
goodness of heart, the genuineness of his own
faith, and his truthfulness of character, induced
the emperor to credit the profession of these
reputed Christians, who craftily preserved the
semblance of sincere affection for his person.
The confidence he reposed in such men some-
times forced him into conduct unworthy of him-
self, of which envy took advantage to cloud in
this respect the luster of his character.- •
' [In his Chronicoii, Kiiscbius gives the more correct period of
tliirty years and ten months. Constantino's reign began a.d. 306,
and his death took place a.d. 337. — linS-\ Compare Prolegomena,
also Clinton, Fasti Rom. an. 337.
- Compare Prolegomena, nnder Characler.
' " Psychical qualities" — including more than intellectual.
- Compare Prolegomena, C/inrnt trr. There is a striking touch
of naturalness in this p.issagr which tells for llie liistorical trustwor-
thiness of the biographer, and though exposing the fault of the em-
peror yet gives a rather pleasing glimpse of his character.
CHAPTER LV.
Consiantine employed himself in Composition of
Various Kinds to the Close of his Life.
These offenders, however, were soon over-
taken by divine chastisement. To return to our
emperor. He had so thoroughly trained his
mind in the art of reasoning that he continued
to the last to compose discourses on various
subjects, to deliver frequent orations in public,
and to instruct his hearers in the sacred doc-
trines of religion. He was also habitually en-
gaged in legislating both on political and mili-
tary questions ; ' in short, in devising whatever
might be conducive to the general welfare of the
human race. It is well worthy of remark, that,
very shortly before his departure, he pronounced
a funeral oration before his usual auditory, in
which he spoke at length on the immortality of
the soul, the state of those who had persevered
in a life of godliness, and the blessings which
God has laid up in store for them that love him.
On the other hand he made it appear by copi-
ous and conclusive arguments what the end of
those will be who have pursued a contrary ca-
reer, describing in vivid language the final ruin
of the ungodly. His powerful testimony on
these subjects seemed so far to touch the con-
sciences of those around him, that one of the
self-imagined philosophers, of whom he asked
his opinion of what he had heard, bore testi-
mony to the truth of his words, and accorded a
real, though reluctant, tribute of praise to the
arguments by which he had exposed the worship
of a plurality of gods. By converse such as this
with his friends before his death, the emperor
seemed as it were to smooth and prepare the
way for his transition to a happier life.
CHAPTER LVI.
Hojo he took Bishops tuith him on an Expedi-
tion against the Persians, and took with him
a Tent in the Form of a Church.
It is also worthy of record that about the
time of which I am at present writing, the em-
peror, having heard of an insurrection of some
barbarians in the East, observed that the con-
ijuest of this enemy was still in store for him,
and resolved on an expedition against the Per-
sians. Accordingly he proceeded at once to
put his forces in motion, at the same time com-
municaling his intended march to the bishops
who happened to be at his court, some of whom
he judged it right to take with him as compan-
' Compare remarks in Prolegomena, under Writings and Char-
acter.
IV. 6i.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
555
ions, and as needful coadjutors in the service of
Ood. They, on the other hand, cheerfully de-
clared their willingness to follow in his train,
disclaiming any desire to leave him, and engag-
ing to battle with and for him by supplication
to God on his behalf. Full of joy at this an-
swer to his request, he unfolded to them his pro-
jected line of march ; ^ after which he caused a
tent of great sjilendor, representing in shape the
figure of a church, to be prepared for his own
use in the approaching war. In this he intended
to unite v/ith the bishops in offering prayers to
the God from whom all victory proceeds.
CHAPTER LVII.
How he received an Embassy frotn the Per-
sians and kept the A'ight Vigil with others
at the Feast of Easter.
In the meanwhile the Persians, hearing of the
emperor's warlike preparations, and not a litde
terrified at the prospect of an engagement with
his forces, dispatched an embassy to pray for
conditions of peace. These overtures the em-
peror, himself a sincere lover of peace, at once
accepted, and readily entered on friendly rela-
tions with that people. At this time, the great
festival of Easter was at hand ; on which occa-
sion he rendered the tribute of his prayers to
God, and passed the night in watching with the
rest.
CHAPTER LVIII.
Concerning the Building of a CJmrch in Honor
of the Apostles at Constantinople.
ArrER this he proceeded to erect a church in
memory of the apostles, in the city which bears
his name. This building he carried to a vast
height, and brilliantly decorated by encasing it
from the foundation to the roof with marble
slabs of various colors. He also formed the
inner roof of finely fretted work, and overlaid it
throughout with gold. The external covering,
which protected the building from the rain, was
of brass instead of tiles ; and this too was splen-
didly and profusely adorned with gold, and re-
flected the sun's rays with a brilliancy which
dazzled the distant beholder. The dome was
entirely encompassed by a finely carved tracery,
wrought in brass and gold.
CHAPTER LIX.
Farther Description of the same Church.
Such was the magnificence with which the
emperor was pleased to beautify this church.
1 From this point to the end of the first sentence in oh. 58 is
bracketed by Heinichen.
The building was surrounded by an open area
of great extent, the four sides of which were ter-
minated by porticos which enclosed the area
and the church itself Adjoining these porticos
were ranges of stately chambers, with baths and
promenades, and besides many apartments
adapted to the use of those who had charge of
the place.
CHAPTER LX.
He also erected his own Sepulchral Monument
in this Church.
All these edifices the emperor consecrated
with the desire of perpetuating the memory of
tlie apostles of our Saviour. He had, however,
another object in erecting this building : an
object at first unknown, but which aftenvards
became evident to all. He had in fact made
choice of this spot in the prospect of his own
death, anticipating with extraordinary fervor of
faith that his body would share their title with
the aposdes themselves, and that he should thus
even after death become the subject, with them,
of the devotions which should be performed to
their honor in this place. He accordingly
caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church,
like sacred pillars in honor and memory of the
apostolic number, in the center of which his own
was placed, having six of theirs on either side
of it. Thus, as I said, he had provided with
prudent foresight an honorable resting-place
for his body after death, and, having long
before secretly formed this resolution, he now
consecrated this church to the apostles, believing
that this tribute to their memory would be of no
small advantage to his own soul. Nor did God
disappoint him of that which he so ardently
expected and desired. For after he had com-
pleted the first services of the feast of Easter,
and had passed this sacred day of our Lord in a
manner which made it an occasion of joy and
gladness to himself and to all ; the God through
whose aid he performed all these acts, and whose
zealous servant he continued to be even to the
end of life, was pleased at a happy time to trans-
late him to a better Hfe.
CHAPTER LXI.
His Sickness at Helenopolis, and Prayers respect-
ing his Baptism.
At first he experienced some slight bodily in-
disposition, which was soon followed by positive
disease. In consequence of this he visited the
hot baths of his own city ; and thence proceeded
to that which bore the name of his mother.
Here he passed some time in the church of the
556
CONSTANTINE.
[IV. 6i.
martyrs, and offered up supplications and prayers
to God. Being at length convinced that his life
was drawing to a close, he felt the time was
come at which he should seek purification from
sins of his past career, firmly believing that
whatever errors he had committed as a mortal
man, his soul would be purified from them
through the efficacy of the mystical words and
the salutary waters of baptism.^ Impressed
with these thoughts, he poured forth his suppli-
cations and confessions to God, kneeling on the
pavement in the church itself, in wliich he also
now for the first time received the imposition of
hands with prayer.- After this he proceeded as
far as the suburbs of Nicomedia, and there,
having summoned the bishops to meet him,
addressed them in the following words.
CHAPTER LXII.
Co lis tan tine's Appeal to the Bishops, requesting
them to cojifer upon him the Rite of Baptism.
" The time is arrived which I have long hoped
for, with an earnest desire and prayer that I
might obtain the salvation of God. The hour
is come in which I too may have the blessing of
that seal which confers immortality ; the hour
in which I may receive the seal of salvation. I
had thought to do this in the waters of the river
Jordan, wherein our Saviour, for our example, is
recorded to have been baptized : but God, who
knows what is expedient for us, is pleased that I
should receive this blessing here. Be it so, then,
without delay : ^ for should it be his will who is
' Literally " salutary word of cleansing," but the paraphrase of
Bag. will stand well whichever of the readings, " salutary cleans-
ing," or " salutary word of cleansing," is adopted.
- [These words seem to prove that the emperor now first became
a catechumen. His postponement of baptism until his last illness
(after having stood forward so long as the public advocate and pro-
tector of the Christian religion), and the superstitious reliance which
he was encouraged to place on the late performance of this " myste-
rious " rite, afford an evidence of the melancholy obscuration of
Christian truth at the very time when Christianity was ostensibly
becoming the religion of the Roman Empire. There is probably too
much truth in the following remarks of Gibbon: "The pride of
Constantine, who refused the privileges of a catechumen, cannot
easily be explained or excused: but the delay of his baptism may be
justified by the maxims and practice of ecclesiastical antiquity. The
sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a fidl and absolute
expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original
purity, .ind entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the
proselytes of Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent
to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repealed; to throw
away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered," &c.
{Decline a)td Fall, ch. 20). — >'>«.?'•] *^n tlic forms of admission to
the catechumenate, compare Marriott, Baptistn, in Smith and Cheet-
ham, Diet.
' Or " no hesitation." On this clause a deal of controversy has
hinged. " No hesitation shall longer prevail " is the rendering of
Molz., and Kcim (Uebcrlritt C. p. i) similarly gives " let all
duplicity be banished." In the view of this translation, Conslantine
had been hedging all his life, trying to be Christian to Christians
and heathen to heathen. 'I'he basis of the hypothesis is too slight
for it to have any weight in view of the overwhelming documentary
evidence of the frequent public professions of Christianity by Con-
stantine, for which see Prolegomena, under CZ/rtrrtr/cr. Discussion
of various points relating to his baptism will be found under I.iter-
ature, under the names Rusacus, Caslelli, Dathus, Frimelius Kuhr-
mann, Guidi, Halloix, Hynitzsch, Jacobus of Sarug, Nicolai, Polus,
Schelstrate, ScuUetus, Tentzel, Walther, Withof.
Lord of life and death, that my existence here
should be prolonged, and should I be destined
henceforth to associate with the people of God,
and unite with them in prayer as a member of
his Church, I will prescribe to myself from this
time such a course of life as befits his service."
After he had thus spoken, the prelates performed
the sacred ceremonies in the usual manner, and,
having given him the necessary instructions,
made him a partaker of the mystic ordinance.
Thus was Constantine the first of all sovereigns
who was regenerated and perfected in a church
dedicated to the martyrs of Christ ; thus gifted
with the Divine seal of baptism, he rejoiced in
spirit, was renewed, and filled with heavenly
light : his soul was gladdened by reason of the
fervency of his faith, and astonished at the mani-
festation of the power of God. At the conclu-
sion of the ceremony he arrayed himself in
shining imperial vestments, brilliant as the light,^
and reclined on a couch of the purest white,
refusing to clothe himself with the purple any
more.
CHAPTER LXni.
How after his Baptism he rendered Thanks to
God.
He then lifted his voice and poured forth a
strain of thanksgiving to God ; after which he
added these words. " Now I know that I am
truly blessed : now I feel assured that I am ac-
counted worthy of immortality, and am made a
partaker of Divine light." He further expressed
his compassion for the unhappy condition of
those who were strangers to such blessings as he
enjoyed : and when the tribunes and generals
of his army appeared in his presence with lam-
entations and tears at the prospect of their be-
reavement, and with prayers that his days might
yet be prolonged, he assured them in reply that
he was now in possession of true life ; that none
but himself could know the value of the bless-
ings he had received ; so that he was anxious
rather to hasten than to defer his departure to
God. He then proceeded to complete the
needful arrangement of his affairs, becjueathing
an annual donation to the Roman inhabitants
of his imjierial city ; apportioning the inheri-
tance of the empire, like a patrimonial estate,
among his own children ; in short, making every
disi)osition according to his own pleasure.'
- rit was customary for neophytes to wear white garments, which
they laid aside on the eighth day from their baptism. — Rag.\
' The idea of ownership in empire which seems so strange in
these days of republics, and is disallowed even by theoretical monarch-
ists, seems to have been a nicjst matter-of-cour,se one in the mind
of Constantine, and Eusebius was a true imperialist regarding" tyr-
anies " and " republics " as in the same category. Whether it was
by " divine right " or " natural right " they were quite sure it was
a " right," and one to be freely exercised.
IV. 68.]
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE.
557
CHAPTER LXIV.
Cotistantine's Death at Noon on the Feast of
Pentecost.
All these events occurred during a most im-
portant festival, I mean the august and holy
solemnity of Pentecost, which is distinguished
by a period of seven weeks, and sealed with
that one day on which the holy Scriptures attest
the ascension of our common Saviour into
heaven, and the descent of the Holy Spirit
among men. In the course of this feast the
emperor received the privileges I have de-
scribed ; and on the last day of all, which one
might justly call the feast of feasts, he was re-
moved about mid-day to the presence of his
God, leaving his mortal remains to his fellow
mortals, and carrying into fellowship with God
that part of his being which was capable of
understanding and loving him.^ Such was the
close of Constantine's mortal life. Let us now
attend to the circumstances which followed this
event.
CHAPTER LXV.
Lamentations of the Soldiery and their Officers.
Immediately the assembled spearmen and
body-guard rent their garments, and prostrated
themselves on the ground, striking their heads,
and uttering lamentations and cries of sorrow,
calling on their imperial lord and master, or
rather, like true children, on their father, while
their tribunes and centurions addressed him as
their preserver, protector, and benefactor. The
rest of the soldiery also came in respectful order
to mourn as a ilock the removal of their good
shepherd. The people meanwhile ran wildly
throughout the city, some expressing the inward
sorrow of their hearts by loud cries, others ap-
pearing confounded with grief : each mourning
the event as a calamity which had befallen him-
self, and bewailing his death as though they felt
themselves bereft of a blessing common alike
to all.
CHAPTER LXVI.
Removal of the Body from Nicomedia to the
Palace at Consta?itinople.
After this the soldiers lifted the body from
its couch, and laid it in a golden coffin, which
they enveloped in a covering of purple, and
removed to the city which was called by his
own name. Here it was placed in an elevated
1 Compare Prolegomena, Life, Last Years ; also for age at
time of death, Prolegomena, p. 411, note.
position in the principal chamber of the imperial
palace, and surrounded by candles burning in
candlesticks of gold, presenting a marvelous
spectacle, and such as no one under the light
of the sun had ever seen on earth since the
world itself began. For in the central apart-
ment of the imperial palace, the body of the
emperor lay in its elevated resting-place, arrayed
in the symbols of sovereignty, the diadem and
purple robe, and encircled by a numerous retinue
of attendants, who watched around it incessantly
night and day.
CHAFl^ER LXVII.
He received the sajne Honors from the Counts
and other Officers as before his Death.
The military officers, too, of the highest rank,
the counts, and the whole order of magistrates,
who had been accustomed to do obeisance to
their emperor before, continued to fulfill this
duty without any change, even after his death
entering the chamber at the appointed times,
and saluting their coffined sovereign with bended
knee, as though he were still alive. After them
the senators appeared, and all who had been
distinguished by any honorable office, and ren-
dered the same homage. These were followed
by multitudes of every rank, who came with
their wives and children to witness the spectacle.
These honors continued to be rendered for a
considerable time, the soldiers having resolved
thus to guard the body until his sons should
arrive, and take on themselves the conduct of
their father's funeral. No mortal had ever, like
this blessed prince, continued to reign even
after death, and to receive the same homage as
during his life : he only, of all who have ever
lived, obtained this reward from God : a suitable
reward, since he alone of all sovereigns had in all
his actions honored the Supreme God and his
Christ, and God himself accordingly was pleased
that even his mortal remains should still retain
imperial authority among men ; thus indicating
to all who were not utterly devoid of under-
standing the immortal and endless empire which
his soul was destined to enjoy. This was the
course of events here.
CHAPTER LXVIII.
Resolution of the Anny to confer thence-fonvard
the Title of Augustus on his Sons.
Meanwhile the tribunes selected from the
troops under their command those officers whose
fidelity and zeal had long been known to the
emperor, and dispatched them to the Caesars
558
CONSTANTINE.
[IV. 68.
with intelligence of the late event. This service
they accordingly performed. As soon, however,
as the soldiery throughout the provinces received
the tidings of the emperor's decease, they all, as
if by a supernatural impulse, resolved with one
consent, as though their great emperor had been
yet alive, to acknowledge none other than his
sons as sovereigns of the Roman world : and
these they soon after determined should no
longer retain the name of Csesar, but should
each be honored with the title of Augustus, a
name which indicates the highest supremacy
of imperial power. Such were the measures
adopted by the army ; and these resolutions
they communicated to each other by letter, so
that the unanimous desire of the legions became
known at the same point of time throughout the
whole extent of the empire.
CHAPTER LXIX.
Motirniiig for Coiistantine at Roiuc ; and the
Honor paid )iim tlicrc iliroih^^h Paintings after
his Death.
On the arrival of the news of the emperor's
death in the imperial city, the Roman senate
and people felt the announcement as the heav-
iest and most afflictive of all calamities, and
gave themselves up to an excess of grief. The
baths and markets were closed, the public
spectacles, and all other recreations in which
men of leisure are accustomed to indulge, were
interrupted. Those who had erewhile lived in
luxurious ease, now walked the streets in gloomy
sadness, while all united in blessing the name of
the deceased, as the one who was dear to God,
and truly worthy of the imperial dignity. Nor
was their sorrow expressed only in words : they
proceeded also to honor him, by the dedication
of paintings to his memory, with the same re-
spect as before his death. The design of these
pictures embodied a representation of heaven
itself, and depicted the emperor reposing in an
ethereal mansion above the celestial vault.
They too declared his sons alone to be em-
perors and Augusti, and begged with earnest
entreaty that they might be permitted to receive
the body of their emperor, and perform his
obsequies in the imperial city.
CHAPTER LXX.
His Burial by his Son Constantius at Con-
stantinople.
Thus did they there testify their respect for
the memory of him who harl been honored by
God. The second of his sons, however, who
had by this time arrived, proceeded to celebrate
his father's funeral in the city which bears his
name, himself heading the procession, which
was preceded by detachments of soldiers in
military array, and followed by vast multitudes,
the body itself being surrounded by companies
of spearmen and heavy armed infantry. On the
arrival of the procession at the church dedicated
to the apostles of our Saviour, the coffin was
there entombed. Such honor did the youthful
emperor Constantius render to his deceased
parent, both by his presence, and by the due
performance of this sacred ceremony,
CHAPTER LXXI.
Sacred Sei-vice in the Church of the Apostles on
the Occasion of Co7istantine' s Funeral.
As soon as [Constantius] had withdrawn him-
self with the military train, the ministers of God
came forward, with the multitude and the whole
congregation of the faithful, and performed the
rites of Divine worship with prayer. At the
same time the tribute of their praises was given
to the character of this blessed prince, whose
body rested on a lofty and conspicuous monu-
ment, and the whole multitude united with the
priests of God in offering prayers for his soul, not
without tears, — nay, rather with much weeping ;
thus performing an office consonant with the
desires of the pious deceased.^ In this respect
also the favor of God was manifested to his
servant, in that he not only bequeathed the
succession of the empire to his own beloved
sons, but that the earthly tabernacle of his
thrice blessed soul, according to his own earnest
wish, was permitted to share the monument of
the apostles ; was associated with the honor of
their name, and with that of the people of God ;
was honored by the performance of the sacred
ordinances and mystic service ; and enjoyed a
participation in the i)rayers of the saints. Thus,
too, he continued to possess imperial power
even after death, controlling, as though with ren-
ovated life, a universal dominion, and retaining
in his own name, as Victor, Maximus, Augus-
tus, the sovereignty of the Roman world."
CHAPTER LXXH.
Of the Phoenix.
We cannot compare him with that bird of Egypt,
the only one, as they say, of its kind, which dies,
' f Alhidinj; to his desire of beiiiR buried in the chur
ostli's, nnd sharinR their honors, as noticed in ch. 60. — j
rch of the
.apostles, nnd sharinR their lionors, as noticed in ch. 60. — /^",C.]
It appears that an interreRniiin of about three months took
place, durint; which all the laws ami edicts continued to be issued
ni the name uf Constantine, as before his death. — Bag.\
IV. 75-]
THE LIFE OE CONSTANTINIC.
559
self-sacrificed, in the midst of aromatic perfumes,
and, rising from its own ashes with new Hfe, soars
aloft in the same form which it had before.
Rather did he resemble his Saviovn-, who, as the
sown corn which is multiplied from a single
grain, had yielded abundant increase through
the blessing of Ciod, and had overspreatl the
whole world with his fruit. Even so did our
thrice blessed prince become multiplied, as it
were, through the succession of his sons. His
statue was erected along with theirs in every
province ; and the name of Constantine was
owned and honored even after the close of his
mortal life.
CHAPTER LXXIII.
How Constantine is rep7-esented 07i Coins in the
Act of ascending to Heaven.
A COINAGE was also struck which bore the
following device. On one side appeared the
figure of our blessed prince, with the head
closely veiled : the reverse exhibited him sitting
as a charioteer, drawn by four horses, with a hand
stretched downward from above to receive him
up to heaven.
CHAPTER LXXIV.
llie God whom he had honored deservedly hon-
ored him in Return.
Such are the proofs by which the Supreme
God has made it manifest to us, in the person
of Constantine, who alone of all sovereigns had
openly professed the Christian foith, how great
a difference he perceives between those whose
privilege it is to worshi]:) him and his Christ, and
those who have chosen the contrary i)art, who
provoked his enmity by daring to assail his
Church, and whose calamitous end, in every in-
stance, afforded tokens of his displeasure, as
manifestly as the death of Constantine conveyed
to all men an evident assurance of his Divine
love.
CHAPTER LXXV.
He surpassed all Preceding Emperors in Devo-
tion to God.
Standing, as he did, alone and pre-eminent
among the Roman emperors as a worshiper of
God ; alone as the bold proclaimer to all men of
the doctrine of Christ ; having alone rendered
honor, as none before him had ever done, to his
Church ; having alone abolished utterly the error
of polytheism, and discountenanced idolatry in
every form : so, alone among them both during
life and after death, was he accounted worthy of
such honors as none can say have been attained
to by any other ; so that no one, whether Greek
or Barbarian, nay, of the ancient Romans them-
selves, has ever been presented to us as worthy
of comparison with him.^
^ The sharp sarcasms of Julian's Ccesars seem almost to have
taken their text from this challenge. He marshals the great empe-
rors before the gods, where each presents his claim to greatness.
Constantine is greatly ridiculed, and yet to choose between Julian
and Eusebius, if regard is had to Constantine's real effect on world
history, Eusebius is the truer judge, and is at least not so far wrong
that his superlative enthusiasm for his imperial friend cannot be
readily pardoned.
THE ORATION
OF
THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE,
■WHICH HE ADDRESSED
TO THE ASSEMBLY OF THE SAINTS."
CHAPTER I.
Prcliminarx Remarks on the Feast of Easter :
and how the Word of God, having conferred
Manifold Benefits on Mankind, was betrayed
by his Beneficiaries.
That light which far outshines the day and
sun, first pledge of resurrection, and renovation
of bodies long'since dissolved,^ the divine token -
of promise, the path which leads to everlasting
life — in a word, the day of the Passion — is
arrived, best beloved doctors, and ye, my friends
who are assembled here, ye blessed multitudes,
who worship him who is the author of all wor-
ship, and praise him continually with heart and
voice, according to the precepts of his holy
word. But thou. Nature,^ parent of all things,
what blessing like to this hast thou ever accom-
plished for mankind? Nay rather, what is in
any sense thy workmanship, since he who formed,
the universe is himself the author of thy being ?j
For it is he who has arrayed thee in thy beauty ;
and the beauty of Nature is life according to
Nature's laws. But principles quite opposed to
Nature have mightily prevailed ; in that men
have agreed in withholding his rightful worship
from the Lord of all, believing that the order of
the universe depended, not on his providence,
but on the blind uncertainty of chance : and
this notwithstanding the clearest announcement
of the truth by his inspired prophets, whose
words should have claimed belief, but were in
every way resisted by that impious wickedness
which hates the light of truth, and loves the ob-
' Or " once suffering."
2 ep^atov, "gift of Hermes"; i.e. providential good-fortune.
Valesius wrongly conjectures ep^a, " foundation " of promise. ^^
2 Valesius, followed by various translators, substitutes Uod
for " Nature." But all MS. authority, and the context as well, is
against.
scure mazes of darkness. Nor was this error
unaccompanied by violence and cruelty, espe-
cially in that the will of princes encouraged the
blind impetuosity of the multitude, or rather
itself led the way in the career of reckless folly.
Such principles as these, confirmed by the prac-
tice of many generations, became the source of
terrible evils in those early times : but no sooner
had the radiance of the Saviour's presence ap-
peared, than justice took the place of wrong, a
calm succeeded the confusion of the storm,
and the predictions of the prophets were all
fulfilled. For after he had enlightened the
world by the glorious discretion and purity of
his character, and had ascended to the mansions
of his father's house, he founded his Church
on earth, as a holy temple of virtue, an immortal,
imperishable temple, wherein the worship due
to the Supreme Father and to himself should be
piously performed. Ikit what did the insane
malice of the nations hereupon devise ? Their
effort was to reject the grace of Christ, and to
ruin that Church which was ordained for the
salvation of all, though they thus ensured the
overthrow of their own superstition.* Once more
then unholy sedition, once more war and strife
prevailed, with stiff-neckedness, luxurious riot,
and that craving for wealth which now soothes
its victims with specious hope, now strikes them
with groundless fear ; a craving which is con-
trary to nature, and the very characteristic of
Vice herself. Let her, however. He prostrate in
the dust, and own the victorious power of Virtue ;
and let her rend and tear herself, as well she
may, in the bitterness of repentance. But let
us now proceed to speak of topics which per-
tain to the Divine doctrine.
4 lyoq, Molz., Vales., Cous., render " substitute in place thereof
their own superstition."
VOL. I.
O O
562
CONSTANTINE.
CHAPTER 11.
An Appeal to the Church and to his Hearers to
pardon and correct the Errors of his Speech.
Hear then, thou master ' of the ship, possessor
of virgin purity, and thou Church, the cherisher
of tender and inexperienced age, guardian of
truth and gentleness, through whose perennial
fountain the stream - of salvation flows ! Be ye
also indulgent, my hearers, who worship God
sincerely, and are, therefore, the objects of his
care : attending, not to the language, but to the
truth of what is said ; not to him who speaks,
but rather to the pious zeal which hallows his
discourse ! For what will be the use of words
when the real purpose of the speaker remains
unknown? It may be, indeed, that I essay
great things ; the love of God which animates
my soul, a love which overpowers natural re-
serve, is my plea for the bold attempt. On you,
then, I call, who are best instructed in the mys-
teries of God, to aid me with your counsel, to
follow me with your thoughts, and correct what-
ever shall savor of error in my words, expecting
no display of perfect knowledge, but graciously
accepting the sincerity of my endeavor. And
may the Spirit of the Father and the Son accord
his mighty aid, while I utter the words which
he shall suggest to speech or thought." For if
any one, whether in the practice of eloquence,
or any other art, expects to produce a finished
work without the help of God, both the author
and his efforts will be found alike imperfect ;
while he has no cause to fear, no room for dis-
couragement,* who has once been blessed with
the inspiration of Heaven. Wherefore asking
your indulgence for the length of this preface,
let us attempt the theme in its utmost scope.^
CHAPTER HI.
That God is the Father of the Word, and the
Creator of all Things ; and that Material
Objects could not continue to exist, were their
Causes Va?-ious.
God, who is ever above all existence, and the
good which all things desire, has no origin, and
therefore no beginning, being himself the origi-
nator^ of all things which receive existence.
J [The bishop who is thus metaphorically addressed as the guide
and controller of the Church. — B^ffA
2 Some MSS. read Ttofj^a, " draught."
* " I read auT^ (^pdtrfi . . . but regarding </)patret as derived
not from the verb <i)p<ifeii', but from the noun (f>pa.<n^." — //ei'n.
* " Ought not to shrink or to be neglectful."
'• Valesius, followed by /yog and sutjstantially by /^ag'., omitting
irpo?, renders " enter upon the head and principal matter of our
design." Heiit. retains irpo<r, and like Molz. renders " proceed, as
well as I may, to my theme." He means rather thai having God's
help he will not fear to " essay greal things."
' " Beginning."
But he who proceeds from him is again united
to him ; and this separation from and union with
him is not local, but intellectual in its character.
For this generation was accompanied by no dimi-
nution of the Father's substance (as in the case
of generation by seed) ; but by the determining
act of foreknowledge God manifested a Saviour
presiding over - this sensible world, and all cre-
ated things therein.^ From hence, then, is the
source of existence and life to all things which
are within the compass of this world ; hence
proceed the soul, and every sense ; * hence those
organs through which the sense-perceptions are
perfected. What, then, is the object of this
argimient? To prove that there is One director
of all things that exist, and that all things,
whether in heaven or on earth, both natural and
organized bodies,^ are subject to his single sov-
ereignty. For if the dominion of these things,
numberless as they are, were in the hands, not
of one but of many, there must be a partition
and distribution of the elements, and the old
fables would be true ; ^ jealousy, too, and ambi-
tion, striving for superior power, would destroy
the harmonious concord of the Avhole, while
each of the many masters would regulate in a
manner different from the rest the portion sub-
ject to his control. The fact, however, that this
universal order is ever one and the same, is the
proof that it is under the care of a superior
power, and that its origin cannot be ascribed to
chance. Else how could the author of universal
nature ever be known? To whom first, or last,
could prayers and supplications be addressed?
Whom could I choose '^ as the object of my wor-
ship, without being guilty of impiety towards
the rest? Again, if haply I desired to obtain
some temporal blessing, should I not, while
expressing my gratitude to the Power who fav-.
ored my request, convey a reproach to him who
opposed it? Or to whom should I pray, when
desiring to know the cause of my calamity, and
to obtain deliverance ? Or let us suppose that
the answer is given by oracles and prophecies,
^ Presiding " overseer," " president," or " ruler." It is the one
who has charge of games or ships or public works, &c.
' Cf. John i. 3, 13, 14, and Eph. i. 10. There is the greatest
variety in the rendering of this passage, of which Bag's is the worst.
The writer draws here on a philosophy of the Logos, which recog-
nizes the second person of the Trinity as the creator and head of
created things. The free version of Cousin gives the best flavor of
the idea. " He was produced by the inexhaustible fecundity of his
eternal mind to preside over the creation and government of this
visible world." A better translation waits on a better exposition of
the doctrine of the Logos and its history.
* Molz. renders " und die Organe, mit Hilfe derer das Wahrge-
nommene innerlich zur Idee erhoben wird."
^ Chr. substantially "natural and artificial"; Molz. "lifeless
and live"; perhaps " inorganic and organic " is meant.
'' [Alluding to the fabulous division of the world between the
brothers Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. Valesius /« loc — Bag.\ Or
rather Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. Zeus had the heavens, Poseidon
the sea, and Hades the underworld, while the earth remained
"with high Olympus, common to us all" — a fruitful source of
dissension. Cf. Homer, II. XV. 184-195, ed. Doederlein, 2 (1864),
p. 64-65; tr. Hryant, XV. 11. 227-245.
' A possible reading here is tfaipcTu?, i.e. take as the chief
object, &c. — I'alt's. and Hein.
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
563
but that the case is not within the scope of their
authority, being the province of some other
deity."* Where, then, is mercy? where is the
provident care of God for the human race?
Unless, indeed, some more benevolent Power,
assuming a hostile attitude against another who
has no such feeling, be disposed to accord me
his protection. Hence anger, discords, mutual
censure, and finally universal confusion, would
ensue, while each departed from his proper
sphere of action, dissatisfied, through ambitious
love of power, with his allotted portion. What,
then, would be the result of these things?
Surely this discord among the heavenly powers
would prove destructive to the interests of earth :
the orderly alternation of times and seasons
would disappear ; the successive productions of
the earth would be enjoyed no more : the day
itself, and the repose of night which follows it,
would cease to be. But enough on this subject :
let us once more resume that species of reason-
ing which admits of no reply.
CHAPTER IV.
On tJic Erj'or of Idolatrous Worship.
Whatever has had a beginning, has also an
end. Now that which is a beginning in respect
of time, is called a generation : and whatever is
by generation is subject to corruption, and its
beauty ^ is impaired by the lapse of time. How,
then, can they whose origin is from corruptible
generation, be immortal? Again, this supposi-
tion has gained credit with the ignorant multi-
tude, that marriages, and the birth of children,
are usual among the gods. Granting, then, such
offspring to be immortal, and continually pro-
duced, the race must of necessity multiply to
excess : and if this were so, where is the heaven,
or the earth, which could contain so vast and
still increasing a multitude of gods ? But what
shall we say of those men who represent these
celestial beings as joined in incestuous union
with their sister goddesses, and charge them
with adultery and impurity?^ We declare,
further, with all confidence, that the very honors
and worship which these deities receive from
men are accompanied by acts of wantonness
and profligacy. Once more ; the experienced
and skillful sculptor, having formed the concep-
tion of his design, perfects his work according
to the rules of art ; and in a little while, as if
forgetful of himself, idolizes his own creation,
and adores it as an immortal god, while yet he
' Valesius remarks that many instances are recorded where the
oracle of Apollo replied to those who consulted him that Bacchus or
Saturn must be placated in order to their liberation.
1 " Form."
2 A favorite theme of the Christian apologists. Cf. long list
given in the Clevieyitine Recognitions, X, 22.
admits that himself, the author and maker of
the image, is a mortal man. Nay, they even
show the graves and monuments of those whom
they deem immortal, and bestow divine honors
on the dead : not knowing that that which is
truly blessed and incorruptible needs no dis-
tinction which perishable men can give : for that
Being, who is seen by the mental eye, and con-
ceived by the intellect alone, requires to be
distinguished by no external form, and admits
no figure to represent its character and likeness.
But the honors of which we speak are given to
those who have yielded to the power of death :
they once were men, and tenants, while they
lived, of a mortal body.
CHAPTER V.
That Chi'ist, the Son of God, created All Things,
and has appointed to Every Thing the Term
of its Existence.
But why do I defile my tongue with unhal-
lowed words, when my object is to sound the
praises of the true God ? Rather let me cleanse
myself, as it were, from this bitter draught by
the pure stream which flows from the everlast-
ing fountain of the virtue ^ of that God who is
the object of my praise. Be it my special
province to glorify Christ, as well by the actions
of my life, as by that thanksgiving which is due
to him for the manifold and signal blessings
which he has bestowed. I affirm, therefore,
that he^ has laid the foundations of this uni-
verse ; and conceived the race of men, ordain-
ing these things by his word. And immediately
he transferred our newly created parents (igno-
rant at first, according to his will, of good and
evil) to a happy region, abounding in flowers
and fruits of every kind.^ At length, however,
he appointed them a seat on earth befitting
creatures endued with reason ; and then un-
folded to their faculties, as intelhgent beings,
the knowledge of good and evil. Then, too,
he bade the race increase ; and each healthy
region of the world, as far as the bounds of the
circumambient ocean, became the dwelling-place
of men ; while with this increase of numbers
the invention of the useful arts went hand in
1 Or " perfections."
- " To be referred not to the preceding ' Christ ' but . . . the
supreme God." — Hein. ( ?) .
3 [Constantine seems to have supposed the Paradise of our first
parents to be somewhere apart from this earth. In this fanciful
idea, which is obviously indefensible from Scripture he is counte-
nanced by the opinions of TertuUian, Tatian, Clement of Alexan-
dria, Origen, Valentinian, and Jerome, some of whom placed it in
or above the third heaven, others in the fourth, others again in a
world superior to the present, &c. See the note of Valesius, who
quotes from some of these Fathers. In reference to what follows,
we may ask. Was Constantine acquainted with, or does he avoid
noticing, the circumstances of the fall? — Bag.\ Ans. Constan-
tine like many another to our own day seems to regard the " fall "
as a fall upwards — that complacent optimism which ignores Scrip-
ture and Schopenhauer alike.
002
564
CONSTANTINE.
hand. Meantime the various species of in-
ferior* animals increased in due proportion,
each kind discovering some characteristic qual-
ity, the special gift of nature : the tame dis-
tinguished by gentleness and obedience to man ;
the wild by strength and swiftness, and an in-
stinctive foresight which warned them to escape
from peril. The gentler animals he placed
entirely beneath man's protecting care, but
entailed on him the necessity of strife with
those of fiercer nature. He next created the
feathered race, manifold in number, diverse in
character and habits ; brilliant with every variety
of color, and endued with native powers of
melody. Finally, having arranged with wise
discrimination whatever else the compass of this
world contains, and having assigned to every
creature the stated term of its existence, he
thus completed the beautiful order of the per-
fect whole.
CHAPTER VI.
The Falsity of the General Opinion respecting
Fate ^ is proved by the Consideration of
Human Laws, and by the Works of Creation,
the Course of ivhich is not Fortuitous, but
according to an Ordei'ly Arrangement which
evinces the Design of the Creator.
The great majority, however, in their folly,
ascribe the regulation of the universe to nature,
while some imagine fate, or accident,^ to be the
cause. With regard to those who attribute the
control of all things to fate, they know not that
in using this term they utter a mere word, but
designate no active power, nor anything which
has real and substantial existence. For what
can this fate be, considered in itself, if nature
be the first cause of all things ? Or what shall
we suppose nature itself to be, if the law of fate
be inviolable ? Indeed, the very assertion that
there is a law of fate implies that such law is
the work of a legislator : if, therefore, fate itself
* Without the Adyos, i.e. inarticulate or (as here) irrational.
1 For a full discussion of various definitions and usage of the
word P'ate (>j eiptap/neVr)) in Greek philosophy, compare Zeller,
Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics (Lond. 1880), p. 170-171, notes.
2 aiiTo^aToi'. The usual word for chance or accident is Tu;^r).
These may be here, as is often the case, simple synonyms, but both
words are used in the same phrase later in such way as to suggest
that Tiixi is parallel with "fate" rather than "chance" in the
author's mind. a.\)-r6fj.a.rov seems to be used of " self-originating,"
Tuxi of originating from some unknown cause or without any cause.
The former is the modern, self-energized, " lift-yourselves-by-your-
own-boot-straps " evolution. The latter is a form of agnosticism.
Aristotle {I^Ietaph. 10. 8) defines chance (tuxij) as a "cause by
accident " (<n/^3e3r)ico<r), or more literally " coincidence," which is
substantially what Janet {Final Causes, 1878, p. 19) means by defin-
ing chance as the coincidence of causes. At the end of the same chap-
ter Aristotle uses o.vtntJ.n.-rov in contrast with Tuxr) — " tux»j or even
ouTojiaToi'," which has been rendered (M'M.ahon) " chance or even
spontaneity." In modern phrase those who hold these three various
views of the universe might be characterized as " material evolution-
ists," "transcendental idealists," and "philosophical (or perhaps
' agnostic ') evolutionists."
be a law, it must be a law devised by God. All
things, therefore, are subject to God, and noth-
ing is beyond the sphere of his power. If it
be said that fate is the wilP of God, and is so
considered, we admit the fact. But in what
respect do justice,* or self-control,® or the other
virtues, depend on fate? From whence, if so,
do their contraries, as injustice and intemper-
ance, proceed? For vice has its origin from
nature, not from fate ; and virtue is the due
regulation of natural character and disposition.
But, granting that the varied results of actions,
whether right or erroneous in themselves, de-
pend on fortune or fate : in what sense can the
general principle of justice," the principle of ren-
dering to every one his due, be ascribed to fate ? '
Or how can it be said that laws, encouragements
to virtue and dissuasives from what is evil, praise,
blame, punishment, in short whatever operates
as a motive to virtue, and deters from the prac-
tice of vice, derive their origin from fortune or
accident, and not rather from that of justice,*
which is a characteristic attribute of the God of
providence ? For the events which befall men are
consequent upon the tenor of their lives. Hence
pestilence or sedition, famine and plenty, suc-
ceed in turn, declaring plainly and emphatically
that all these things are regulated with reference
to our course of life. For the Divine Being de-
lights in goodness, but turns with aversion from
all impiety ; looks with acceptance on the hum-
ble spirit, but abhors presumption, and that pride
which exalts itself above what becomes a crea-
ture. And though the proofs of these truths are
clear and manifest to our sight, they appear in a
still stronger light, when we collect, and as it
were concentrate our thoughts within ourselves,
and ponder their causes with deep attention.
I say, then, that it becomes us to lead a life
of modesty and gentleness, not suffering our
thoughts to rise proudly above our natural con-
dition, and ever mindful that God is near us,
3 i.e. " plan."
■* h>.Ka.t.o(j\)vi\, better " righteousness," " correctness of thinking,
feeling, and acting" (Thayer, Lex. p. 149). So its opposite men-
tioned below (aiiKia) is better " unrighteousness," as generally in
the revised English version of the N. T., " mammon of unrighteous-
ness" (Luke xvi. 9, e.g.). The word means more than our "just,"
" more," as Socrates said (Plat. Rep. i. 331), "than to speak the
truth and pay your debts." Righteousness is the better translation,
but we are met with the difficulty that it has generally been rendered
justice in translations of the philosophers.
'' aiai\ipoavvi], temperance, vs. aKo\a.ala, intemperance, below;
soundness of mind vs. insanity (cf. use in Acts x.wi. 25, and of verb
in Mark v. 15; Luke viii. 35; also use in Plato, Rep. 332, &c.);
self-control vs. unbridled desire. This same contrast of au>^po<jvvrt
and a/coAoo-ia is found in Aristotle, Eth. 2, vii. 3; 7, vii. i; and
especially 7, ix. $.
" Ti SiKaiov, not SiKaiotTvvri,
" This is very free, and follows tmnslation of Valesius and /7a}
text. 7709 marg. translates more literally, " But either crimes, or,
on the other hand, brave performances, which are [the property] of
a good and right purpose of mind, if they happen sometimes one
way, at others another," and Afo/z. somewhat similarly. It is possi-
ble that it should read: " Granted that either evil actions proceeding
from a good and upright will, or contrariwise, good actions [from an
evil will] which issue directly contrary [to their own nature or to
just expectation] may be ascribed to chance or fate, how can the
right," &c. " 6iKaio<ri/c)j.
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
565
and is the observer of all our actions. But let us
still farther test the truth of the proposition, that
the order of the universe depends on chance ^ or
accident.' Are we then to suppose that the stars
and other heavenly bodies, the earth and sea,
fire and wind, water and air, the succession of
the seasons, the recurrence of summer and win-
ter, that all these have an undesigned and for-
tuitous existence, and not rather that they pro-
ceed from the creative hand of God? Some,
indeed, are so senseless as to say that most of
these things have been devised by mankind be-
cause of their need of them. Let it be admitted
that this opinion has a semblance of reason in
regard to earthly and corruptible things (though
Nature herself supplies every good with a lavish
hand) ; yet can we believe that things which are
immortal and unchangeable are the inventions
of men? These, indeed, and all things else
which are beyond the reach of our senses, and
comprehended by the intellect " alone, receive
their being, not from the material life of man,
but from the intellectual and eternal essence of
God. Again, the orderly arrangement of these
things is the work of his providence : for in-
stance, that the day, deriving radiance from the
sun, is bright ; that night succeeds his setting,
and the starry host'^ by which night itself is
redeemed from total darkness. And what shall
we say of the moon, which when most distant
from, and opposite to the sun, is filled with light,
but wanes in proportion to the nearness of her
approach to him? Do not these things mani-
festly evince the intelligence ^'^ and sagacious wis-
dom of God ? Add to this that needful warmth
of the solar rays which ripens the fruits of the
earth ; the currents of wind, so conducive to the
fertility of the seasons ; the cool and refreshing
showers ; and the harmony of all these things
in accordance with which all are reasonably and
systematically conducted : lastly, the everlasting
order of the planets, which return to the self-
same place at their appointed times : are not all
these, as well as the perfect ministry of the stars,
obedient to a divine law, evident proofs of the
ordinance " of God ? Again, do the mountain
heights, the deep and hollow valleys, the level
and extensive plains, useful as they are, as well
as pleasing to the eye, appear to exist inde-
pendently of the will of God ? Or do not the
proportion and alternate succession of land and
water, serviceable, the one for husbandry, the
other for the transport of such foreign products
Tu;^;rj. 10 auTOjiiaTOf.
" vooi was not narrowed to the mere intellectual functions.
" Intellectual " is not to be taken of brain function only, but of
brain and heart, — real knowing, as against the " intellectuation"
which men nowadays try to force the word " know " to mean.
'^ ' Quire of the stars," J^OQ.
1' The " Adyos ivSi.6i9iToi " of Philo, frequent in Alexandrian
theologians. It is the unuttered thought vs. the expressed word.
'* Fore-ordination, or plan.
as we need, afford a clear demonstration of his
exact and proportionate j^rovidential care? For
instance, the mountains contain a store of water,
which the level ground receives, and after im-
bibing sufficient for the renovation of the soil,
sends forth the residue into the sea, and the sea
in turn passes it onward to the ocean. And still
we dare to say that all these things happen by
chance '^ and accident ; unable though we be to
show by what shape or form this chance is char-
acterized ; a thing which has no foundation either
in intellect or sense existence ; which rings in
our ears as the mere sound of an unsubstantial
name !
CHAPTER VII.
In regard to Things above our Comprehension,
tue should glorify the Creator'' s Wisdom, and
attribute their Causes to him alone, and not
to Chance.
In fact, this word " chance " is the expression
of men who think in haphazard and illogical
fashion ; who are unable to understand the
causes of these things, and who, owing to the
feebleness of their own apprehensions, conceive
that those things for which they cannot assign a
reason, are ordered without reason. There are,
unquestionably, some things which possess won-
derful natural properties, and the full apprehen-
sion of which is very difficult : for example, the
nature of hot springs. For no one can easily
explain the cause of so powerful a fire ; and it
is indeed surprising that though surrounded on
all sides by a body of cold water, it loses none
of its native heat. These phenomena appear to
be of rare occurrence throughout the world,
being intended, I am persuaded, to afford to
mankind convincing evidence of the power of
that Providence which ordains that two directly
opposite natures, heat and cold, should thus pro-
ceed from the self-same source. Many indeed,
yea, numberless, are the gifts which God has
bestowed for the comfort and enjoyment of man ;
and of these the fruit of the olive-tree and the
vine deserve especial notice ; the one for its
power of renovating and cheering the soul,^ the
other because it ministers to our enjoyment, and
is likewise adapted for the cure of bodily disease.
Marvelous, too, is the course of rivers, flowing
night and day with unceasing motion, and pre-
senting a type of ever-flowing, never-ceasing life :
and equally wonderful is the alternate succession
of day and night.
1^ auTo^aTOi'.
1 i^ux^? = " soul." In the absence of a proper Biblical psychol-
ogy the word has been most sadly abused in translations. The only
way back to a proper conception of the words " spirit " and " soul"
and " life," &c., is to re-establish a uniform rendering for them. It
is as bad as the rendering of our English version, where nephesh
{^y^ivxi]) is rendered " life."
566
CONSTANTINE.
CHAPTER VIII.
That God bestotus an Abundant Supply of 7vhat-
cver is suited to the Wants of Man, and 7nin-
isters but sparingly to his Fleasufes ; in Both
Cases with a View to his Advantage.
Let what has been said suffice to prove that
nothing exists without reason and intelligence,
and that reason
God. It is he
metals, as gold,
due proportion ;
itself and providence are of
who has also distributed the
silver, copper, and the rest, in
ordaining an abundant supply
of those which would be most needed and gen-
erally employed, while he dispensed those which
serve the purposes merely of pleasure in adorn-
ment of luxury with a liberal and yet a sparing
hand, holding a mean between parsimony and
profusion. For the searchers for metals, were
those which are employed for ornament pro-
cured in equal abundance with the rest, would
be impelled by avarice to despise and neglect to
gather those which, like iron or copper, are ser-
viceable for husbandry, or house-building, or the
equipment of ships ; and would care for those
only which conduce to luxury and a superfluous
excess of wealth. Hence it is, as they say, that
the search for gold and silver is far more diffi-
cult and laborious than that for any other metals,
the violence of the toil thus acting as a counter-
poise to the violence of the desire. And how
many instances might still further be enumerated
of the workings of that Divine Providence which,
in all the gifts which it has so unsparingly con-
ferred upon us, plainly urges us to the practice
of self-control and all other virtues, and leads
us away from unbefitting covetousness ! To trace
the secret reasons of all these things is indeed a
task which exceeds the power of human faculties.
For how can the intellect of a frail and perish-
able being arrive at the knowledge of perfect
truth, or apprehend in its purity the counsel of
God from the beginning?
CHAPTER IX.
Of the Philosophers, who fell into Mistaken No-
tions, and Some of them into Danger, by their
Desire of Universal Knowledge. — Also of
the Doctrines of Plato.
We ought, therefore, to aim at objects which
are within our power, and exceed not the ca])ac-
ities of our nature. For the persuasive influence
of argument has a tendency to draw most of
us away from the truth of things, which has
happened to many philosophers, who have em-
ployed themselves in reasoning, and the study
of natural science, and who, as often as the
magnitude of the subject surpasses their powers
of investigation, adopt various devices for obscur-
ing the truth. Hence their diversities of judg-
ment, and contentious opposition to each others'
doctrines, and this notwithstanding their pre-
tensions to wisdom. Hence, too, popular com-
motions have arisen, and severe sentences,
passed by those in power, apprehensive of the
overthrow of hereditary institutions, have proved
destructive to many of the disputants themselves.
Socrates, for example, elated by his skill in ar-
gumentation, indulging his power of making the
worse appear the better reason,^ and playing
continually with the subtleties of controversy,
fell a victim to the slander of his own country-
men and fellow-citizens. Pythagoras, too, who
laid special claim to the virtues of silence and
self-control, was convicted of falsehood. For
he declared to the Italians that the doctrines
which he had received during his travels in
Elgypt, and which had long before been divulged
by the priests of that nation, were a personal
revelation to himself from God. Lastly, Plato
himself, the gentlest and most refined of all,
who first essayed to draw men's thoughts from
sensible to intellectual and eternal objects, and
taught them to aspire to sublimer speculations,
in the first place declared, with truth, a God ex-
alted above every essence, but to him he added
also a second, distinguishing them numerically as
two, though both possessing one perfection, and
the being of the second Deity proceeding from -
the first. For he is the creator and controller
of the universe, and evidently supreme : while
the second, as the obedient agent of his com-
mands, refers the origin of all creation to him
as the cause. In accordance, therefore, with
the soundest reason, we may say that there is
one Being whose care and j^rovidence are over
all things, even God the Word, who has ordered
all things ; but the Word being God himself is
also the Son of God. For by what name can
we designate him except by this title of the
Son, without falling into the most grievous
error? For the Father of all things is properly
considered the Father of his own Word. Thus
far, then, Plato's sentiments were sound ; but in
what follows he appears to have wandered from
the truth, in that he introduces a plurality of
gods, to each of whom he assigns specific
forms. And this has given occasion to still
greater error among the unthinking portion of
' This is almost identically the form of what Socrates {Apol. c.
2) declared to be the falsehood circulated by his enemies to his
prejudice. " But far more dangerous are those who began when
you were children and took possession of your minds with their
falsehoods, telling of one Socrates, a wise man who . . . made the
worse appear the better cause" (Aoyor, "reason"), Tr. Jowett, 1
(1S74), 316. This example docs peculiar discredit either to the
learning or the mental honesty of the author.
= Kather " deriving existence Imm." "proceeding from," gives
strict idea, but may be confounded witli the technical " proceeding
from " of the " filioque " controversy, which is quite another phrase.
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
567
mankind, who pay no regard to the providence
of the Supreme God, but worship images of their
own devising, made in the Hkeness of men or
other hving beings. Hence it appears that the
transcendent nature and admirable learning of
this philosopher, tinged as they were with such
errors as these, were by no means free from im-
purity and alloy. And yet he seems to me to
retract, and correct his own words, when he
plainly declares that a rational soul is the breath ^
of God, and divides all things into two classes,
intellectual and sensible : [the one simple, the
other] ■* consisting of bodily structure ; the one
comprehended by the intellect alone, the other
estimated by the judgment and the senses. The
former class, therefore, which partakes of the
divine spirit, and is uncompounded and imma-
terial, is eternal, and inherits everlasting life ;
but the latter, being entirely resolved into the
elements of which it is composed, has no share
in everlasting life. He farther teaches the ad-
mirable doctrine, that those who have passed a
life of virtue, that is, the spirits of good and
holy men, are enshrined, after their separation
from the body, in the fairest mansions of heaven.
A doctrine not merely to be admired, but profit-
able too.^ For who can believe in such a state-
ment, and aspire to such a happy lot, without
desiring to practice righteousness and temper-
ance, and to turn aside from vice ? Consistently
with this doctrine he represents the spirits of
the wicked as tossed like wreckage on the streams
of Acheron and Pyriphlegethon.
CHAPTER X.
Of those who reject the Doctrines of Philoso-
phers, as luell as those of Scripture : and that
we ought to believe the Poets in All Things,
or disbelieve them in All.
There are, however, some persons so infat-
uated, that when they meet with such sentiments
as these, they are neither converted or alarmed :
nay, they even treat them with contempt and
scorn, as if they listened to the inventions of
fable ; applauding, perhaps, the beauty of the
eloquence, but abhorring the severity of the pre-
cepts. And yet they give credence to the fic-
tions of the poets, and make both civilized and
3 " Spirit."
■* " The one simple " is not in the text, but is a conjectural addi-
tion of Valesius, followed by most translators. " Consisting of
bodily structure " seems possibly to be an epexegetical phrase relat-
ing to the " all things " which he divides into intellectual and sen-
sible, making the intellectual as well as the sensible to have bodily
(somatic) structure. " All things," or " the universe," a plural
technical term, is regarded as his mind passes to the explanation as
' the all." This psychological probability appears a simpler solu-
tion than the various textual conjectures.
'' Heinichen suspects that there has been an inversion of words
here, and that it should have been, " He further teaches the admi-
rable and profitable doctrine," and " a doctrine not merely to be ad-
mired " omitted.
barbarous ^ countries ring with exploded and
folse tales. For the poets assert that the judg-
ment of souls after death is committed to men
whose parentage they ascribe to the gods,^ ex-
tolling their righteousness and impartiality and
represent them as guardians of the dead. The
same poets describe the battles of the gods and
certain usages of war among them, and speak
of them as subject to the power of fate. Some
of these deities they picture to us as cruel,
others as strangers to all care for the human
race, and others again as hateful in their char-
acter. They introduce them also as mourning
the slaughter of their own children, thus imply-
ing their inability to succor, not strangers merely,
but those most dear to them. They describe
them, too, as subject to human passions, and
sing of their battles and wounds, their joys and
sorrows. And in all this they appear worthy
of belief.^ For if we suppose them to be
moved by a divine impulse to attempt the poetic
art, we are bound to believe them and to be
persuaded of what they utter under this inspira-
tion. They speak, then, of the calamities to
which their divinities are subject ; calamities
which of course are altogether true ! But it
will be objected that it is the privilege of poets
to lie, since the peculiar province of poetry is to
charm * the spirits of the hearers, while the very
essence of truth is that things told be in reality
exactly what they are said to be.^ Let us grant
that it is a characteristic of poetry occasionally
to conceal the truth. But they who speak false-
hood do it not without an object ; being in-
fluenced either by a desire of personal gain or
advantage, or possibly, being conscious of some
evil conduct, they are induced to disguise the
truth by dread of the threatening vengeance of
the laws. But surely it were possible for them
(in my judgment), by adhering faithfully to
truth at least while treating of the nature of the
Supreme Being, to avoid the guilt at once of
falsehood and impiety.
1 " All the Greek-speaking world, and foreign lands as well."
- Rhadamanthus was a son of Jove (or Vulcan) and Europa.
Cf. Hom. //. 14. 322; Od. 4. 564, 7. 323.
3 [There can be no doubt (though the fact is not immediately
apparent from the wording of the text), that the spirit of this pas-
sage is ironical. — Bag.'\
* Rather "cheat," or "delude." Mr. Charles Dudley Warner,
essayist and novelist, says in an interesting essay on the relation of
fiction to life, that the object of fiction is to produce illusions, and
the test of its art is its power to produce such illusion.
'' There is a temptation here to adopt the translation of Molz.
" Truth lies in the fiction, however, when what is told corresponds
to reality." Mr. Warner, in his lecture, goes on to say that the ob-
ject of fiction is to reveal what is, — not the base and sordid things
only or peculiarly, but the best possibilities, and gives an exquisite
exposition of the fact that the idealism of true fiction is simply the
realism of the nobler characteristics and truths. The truth is, that
the object of fiction or poetry as art is to produce the image, — fill
the whole personality with a picture. This is only gained in its
highest form when every detail exactly corresponds to truth or
reality. The function of fiction is not illusion, but realization. Its
object is the reproduction of truth. Molz. makes Constantine say
that fiction is true when it corresponds to reality, though the forms
be not historical or actual. This is a true observation, Ijut not what
Constantine says. He says in substance, with Mr. Warner, that the
568
CONSTANTINE.
CHAPTER XL
On the Coming of our Lord in the Flesh ; its
Nature and Cause}
Whoever, then, has pursued a course un-
worthy of a life of virtue, and is conscious of
having lived an irregular and disorderly life, let
him repent, and turn with enlightened spiritual
vision to God ; and let him abandon his past
career of wickedness, content if he attain to
wisdom even in his declining years. We, how-
ever, have received no aid from human instruc-
tion ; nay, whatever graces of character are
esteemed of good report by those who have
understanding, are entirely the gift of God.
And I am able to oppose no feeble buckler
against the deadly weapons of Satan's armory ;
I mean the knowledge I possess of those
things which are pleasing to him : and of these
I will select such as are appropriate to my pres-
ent design, while I proceed to sing the praises
of the Father of all. But do thou, O Christ,
Saviour of mankind, be present to aid me in
my hallowed task ! Direct the words which
celebrate thy virtues,^ and instruct me worthily
to sound thy praises. And now, let no one
expect to listen to the graces of elegant lan-
guage : for well I know that the nerveless elo-
quence of those who speak to charm the ear,
and whose aim is rather applause than sound
argument, is distasteful to hearers of sound
judgment. It is asserted, then, by some pro-
fane and senseless persons, that Christ, whom we
worship, was justly condemned to death, and that
he who is the author of life to all, was himself
deprived of life. That such an assertion should
be made by those who have once dared to enter
the paths of impiety, who have cast aside all
fear, and all thought of concealing their own
depravity, is not surprising. But it is beyond
the bounds of folly itself that they should be
able, as it seems, really to persuade themselves
that the incorruptible God yielded to the vio-
lence of men, and not rather to that love alone
which he bore to the human race : that they
should fail to perceive that divine magnanimity
and forbearance is changed by no insult, is
moved from its intrinsic steadfastness by no
revilings ; but is ever the same, breaking down
and repelling, by the spirit of wisdom and great-
ness of soul, the savage fierceness of those who
assail it. The gracious kindness of God had
determined to abohsh iniquity, and to exalt
order and justice. Accordingly, he gathered a
company of the wisest among men,' and or-
dained that most noble and useful doctrine,
which is calculated to lead the good and blessed
of mankind to an imitation of his own provi-
dential care. And what higher blessing can we
speak of than this, that God should prescribe
the way of righteousness, and make those who
are counted worthy of his instruction like him-
self; that goodness might be communicated to
all classes of mankind, and eternal felicity be
the result ? This is the glorious victory : this
the true power : this the mighty work, worthy
of its author, the restoration of all people to
soundness of mind : and the glory of this tri-
umph we joyfully ascribe to thee, thou Saviour
of all ! But thou, vile and wretched blasphemy,
whose glory is in lies and rumors and calumny ;
thy power is to deceive and prevail with the
inexperience of youth, and with men who still
retain the folly of youth. These thou seducest
from the service of the true God, and settest up
false idols as the objects of their worship and
their prayers ; and thus the reward of their folly
awaits thy deluded victims : for they calumniate
Christ, the author of every blessing, who is God,
and the Son of God. Is not the worship of the
best and wisest of the nations of this world
worthily directed to that God, who, while pos-
sessing boundless power, remains immovably
true to his own purpose, and retains undimin-
ished his characteristic kindness and love to
man ? Away, then, ye impious, for still ye may
while vengeance on your transgressions is yet
withheld ; begone to your sacrifices, your feasts,
your scenes of revelry and drunkenness, wherein,
under the semblance of religion, your hearts are
devoted to profligate enjoyment, and pretending
to perform sacrifices, yourselves are the willing
slaves of your own pleasures. No knowledge
have ye of any good, nor even of the first com-
'mandment of the mighty God, who both de-
clares his will to man, and gives commission to
his Son to direct the course of human life, that
I they who have passed a career of virtue and self-
control may obtain, according to the judgment
of that Son, a second, yea, a blessed and happy
existence.^ I have now declared the decree of
God respecting the life which he prescribes to
man, neither ignorantly, as many have done, nor
object is to produce illusion or deceive, while the idea of truth is just
the reverse.
1 One MS. adds, " and concerning those who did not know this
mystery." In another the chapter is divided, and this is the heading
of the second part.
' Or " this discourse concerning virtue."
' [Alhidinc; to the apostles, who are called in the beginning of
ch. 15, " the best men of their age." Were it our province to
criticise, wc might notice the contrariety of such expressions as
these to the account which Scripture gives us of those " unlearned
and ignorant men," the feeble, and, in themselves, fallible instru-
ments, whom God selected to further Ills wondrous designs of
niercy to a ruined world. — !^t.^A Were it in our province to criti-
cise the critic, we might notice that the fear of the Lord is the begin-
ning of wisdom, and refer to the whole Book of Proverbs. Any
just conception of wisdom or true learning says the same thing.
The man who knows that God and not <Ju<Tt? or tux>7 manages the
universe, is more learned than the wisest of those learned in things
which are not so.
* Christophorson extends ch. 10 to this point, and here introduces
ch. II, with the heading " On the coming of Our Lord in the flesh;
its nature and cause."
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
569
resting on the ground of opinion or conjecture.
But it may be that some will ask, Whence this
title of Son? Whence this generation of which)
we speak, if God be indeed only One, and inca- ■
pable of union with another ? We are, however,
to consider generation as of two kmds ; one in
the way of natural birth, which is known to all ;
the other, that which is the effect of an eternal
cause, the mode of which is seen by the pre-
science of God, and by those among men whom
he loves. For he who is wise will recognize the
cause which regulates the harmony of creation.
Since, then, nothing exists without a cause, of
necessity the cause of existing substances pre-
ceded their existence. But since the world and
all things that it contains exist, and are pre-
served,^ their preserver must have had a prior
existence ; so that Christ is the cause of preser-j
vation, and the preservation of things is an
effect : ® even as the Father is the cause of the
Son, and the Son the effect of that cause.
Enough, then, has been said to prove his
priority of existence. But how do we explain
his descent to this earth, and to men? His
motive in this,'' as the prophets had foretold,
originated in his watchful care for the interests
of all : for it needs must be that the Creator
should care for his own works. But when the
time came for him to assume a terrestrial body,
and to sojourn on this earth, the need requiring,
he devised for himself a new mode ^ of birth.
Conception was there, yet apart from marriage :
childbirth, yet pure virginity : and a maiden
became the mother of God ! An eternal
nature received a beginning of temporal ex-
istence : a sensible form of a spiritual es-
sence, a material manifestation of incorporeal
brightness," appeared. Alike wondrous were the
circumstances which attended this great event.
A radiant dove, like that which flew from the
ark of Noah,'" alighted on the Virgin's bosom :
•'' Preserved, preserver, and preservation = saved, saviour, and
salvation. This represents the N. T. idea better than the popular
conception which confuses Christ our Saviour with Christ our Re-
deemer. Redemption was a necessary part of his effort for our sal-
vation, but the salvation itself was a saving, in literal English pre-
serving. We have been redeemed; we are being saved.
^ Bag. follows here Valesius' translation and note where he
makes the word " preservation" a conjectural emendation of Scali-
ger, inconsistent with the meaning of the passage, and omits trans-
lating " the cause of all things that exist." But Hem. does not even
hint such reading, and his text (followed also by Molz.), so far from
tending to disturb the whole meaning, gives much the more intelli-
gent conception. Christ is the preserver (saviour) of things. Pres-
ervation of things is the effect of that cause, just as the Father is
the cause of the Son, and the Son the effect of that cause. Therefore
the preserver precedes created things as a cause precedes its effect.
' Valesius expresses a preference for the reading Ka66&ov (ad-
vent) here instead of KaBoKov (universal), but the latter is the read-
ing of Heinichen, and undoubtedly correct. Bag. has followed
Valesius.
* "New mode" is a paraphrase supported by only one MS.
The real meaning of v68r]v is well expressed by Chr., " alienam
quandam a communi hominum natura nascendi rationem sibi ex-
cogitavit." Its usual meaning is " illegitimate."
" This is supposed to refer to Heb. i. 3, although a different
Greek word is used.
1" Various suggestions have been made regarding the dove which
according to the literal rendering "flew from the ark of Noah."
Christophorson (according to Valesius) supposes it to be that dove
and accordant with this impalpable union, purer
than chastity, more guileless than innocence itself,
were the results which followed. From infancy
possessing the wisdom of God, received with
reverential awe by the Jordan, in whose waters
he was baptized, gifted with that royal unction,
the spirit of universal intelligence ; with knowl-
edge and power to perform miracles, and to heal
diseases beyond the reach of human art; he
yielded a swift and unhindered assent to the
prayers of men, to whose welfare, indeed, his
whole life was devoted without reserve. His
doctrines instilled, not prudence only,'' but real
wisdom : his hearers were instructed, not in the
mere social virtues,'- but in the ways which con-
duct to the spiritual world ; and devoted them-
selves to the contemplation of immutable and
eternal things, and the knowledge of the Supreme
Father. The benefits which he bestowed were
no common blessings : for blindness, the gift of
sight ; for helpless weakness, the vigor of health ;
in the place of death, restoration to life again. I
dwell not on that abundant provision in the wil-
derness, whereby a scanty measure of food be-
came a complete and enduring supply '^ for the
wants of a mighty multitude." Thus do we render
thanks to thee, our God and Saviour, according to
our feeble power ; unto thee, O Christ, supreme
Providence of the mighty Father, who both
savest us from evil, and impartest to us thy
most blessed doctrine : for I say these things,
not to praise, but to give thanks. For what
mortal is he who shall worthily declare thy
praise, of whom we learn that thou didst from
nothing call creation into being, and illumine it
with thy light ; that thou didst regulate the
confusion of the elements by the laws of har-
mony and order? But chiefly we mark thy
loving-kindness,'"' in that thou hast caused those
which Noah formerly sent out of the ark, this dove being a figure of
the Holy Spirit which was afterward to come in the Virgin. Jerome,
Ep. ad Oc, also regards the Noachic dove as a symbol of the
Holy Spirit. Vales., followed by ijii and Bag., prefer to translate
as if it were " like that," &c. This form of the story, according to
which the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove, is according
to Valesius from the Apochrypha; perhaps, he suggests, from the
" Gospel to the Hebrews." In later art the dove is the constant
symbol of the Holy Spirit, and is often found in pictures of the
annunciation, e.g. in pictures by Simeone Memmi, Diirer, Andrea
del .Sarto, and many others. It is found in six of the pictures of the
annunciation given by Mrs. Jameson {Legends 0/ ike Madonna,
p. 165 sq.).
1' The author seems to have here a reference to the Aristotelian
distinction between prudence and wisdom (ci. Ethics, 6. 3; 7. 8,
&c.). It reminds of that passage (vi. 7, ed. Grant ad. ii. 165-166),
where the two are distinguished and defined, wisdom being "con-
cerned with the immutable, and prudence with the variable " ; and a
little farther along wisdom is distinguished from " statesmanship,"
i.e. the " social" of Bag., which is a form of " prudence" (tr. Wil-
liams, p. 160), and indeed (vi. 8. i) generically identical with
prudence. So again (i, 2) "political art" is identified with
ethics.
1- Social virtues or " political " virtues. Cf. the " political art "
or " statesmanship" of Aristotle.
13 [UoAAoO ;(pd>'ou, " for a considerable time." This seems to be
a rhetorical addition to the circumstances of the miracle, scarcely
to be justified by the terms of the inspired narrative. — Bag.^
'■• At this point Christophorson begins his chapter xii., " of
those who did not know the mystery," &c.
'8 The translator takes most extraordinary liberties with the word
" philanthropy "; now it is " loving-kindness," now " love of their
570
CONSTANTINE.
whose hearts incUned to thee to desire earnestly
a divine and blessed life, and hast provided that,
like merchants of true blessings, they might im-
part to many others the wisdom and good for-
tune they had received ; themselves, meanwhile,
reaping the everlasting fruit of virtue. Freed
from the trammels of vice, and imbued with the
love of their fellow-men, they keep mercy ever
before their eyes, and hoping for the promises
of faith ; '*^ devoted to modesty, and all those
virtues which the past career of human life had
thrown aside [but which were now restored by
him whose providence is over all].'" No other
power could be found to devise a remedy for
such evils, and for that spirit of injustice which
had heretofore asserted its dominion over the
race of men. Providence, however, could reach
the circumstances even here, and with ease re-
stored whatever had been disordered by violence
and the licentiousness of human passion. And
this restoring power he exercised without con-
cealment. For he knew that, though there
were some whose thoughts were able to recog-
nize and understand his power, others there
were whose brutish and senseless nature led them
to rely exclusively on the testimony of their own
senses. In open day, therefore, that no one,
whether good or evil, might find room for doubt,
he manifested his blessed and wondrous heal-
ing power ; restoring the dead to life again, and
renewing with a word the powers of those who
had been bereft of bodily sense.'^ Can we, in
short, suppose, that to render the sea firm as
the solid ground, to still the raging of the storm,
and finally to ascend to heaven, after turning the
unbelief of men to steadfast faith by the per-
formance of these wondrous acts, demanded less
than almighty power, was less than the work of
God? Nor was the time of his passion unac-
companied by like wonders : when the sun was
darkened, and the shades of night obscured the
light of day. Then terror everywhere laid hold
upon the people, and the thought that the end
of all things was already come, and that chaos,
such as had been ere the order of creation began,
would once more prevail. Then, too, the cause
was sought of so terrible an evil, and in what
respect the trespasses of men had provoked the
wrath of Heaven ; until God himself, who sur-
veyed with calm dignity the arrogance of the
ungodly, renewed the face of heaven, and
fcUow-men," and so on in picturesque variety, and yet as appropri-
ate as it is lacking in uniformity.
'" Cf. Rom. viii. 25; Gal. v. 5.
" [The text, in the last clause of this passage, is undoubtedly
corrupt. The above is an attempt to supply a probable sense. —
Bitf,'-.] This is omitted by f/f/ii. from his text.
'" I.e. healing the paralytics. This paraiihrascd passage rends
more liternlly, " bidding tliose bereft of sense [i.e. sensation, feeling]
to feci again." Still it may bo that fl/oiz. is right in thinking it
refers to the senses — seeing, hearing, &c. — as well as feeling,
though his translation will hardly stand; "and to such as Lacked
any of the senses he granted the full use of all their senses again."
adorned it with the host of stars. Thus the be-
clouded face of Nature was again restored to her
pristine beauty.
CHAPTER Xn.
Of those who are Ignorant of this Mystery; and
that their Ignorance is Voluntary. The Bless-
ings which await those 7uho know it, especially
such as die in the Cotifession of the Faith}
But it will be said by some, who love to blas-
pheme, that it was in the power of God to ame-
liorate and soften the natural will of man. What
better way, I ask, what better method could be
devised, what more effectual effort put forth foi
reclaiming evil man, than converse with God
himself? Was not he visibly present to teach
them the principles of virtuous conduct? And
if the personal instructions of God were without
effect, how much more, had he continued ab-
sent and unheard ? What, then, had power to
hinder this most blessed doctrine? The per-
verse folly of man. For the clearness of our
perceptions is at once obscured, as often as we
receive with angry impatience those precepts
which are given for our blessing and advantage.
In truth, it was the very choice of men to disre-
gard these precepts, and to turn a deaf car to the
commandments so distasteful to them ; though
had they listened, they would have gained a
reward well worthy such attention, and that not
for the present only, but the future life, which
is indeed the only true life. For the reward of
obedience to God is imperishable and everlast-
ing life, to which they may aspire who know
him,- and frame their course of life so as to
afford a pattern to others, and as it were a per-
petual standard for the imitation of those who
desire to excel in virtue. Therefore was the
doctrine committed to men of understanding,
that the truths which they communicated might
be kept with care and a pure conscience by the
members of their househokls, and that thus a
truthful and steadfast observance of God's coni-
mands might be secured, the fruit of which is
that boldness in the prospect of death which
springs from pure faith and genuine holiness
before God. He who is thus armed can with-
stand the tempest of the world, and is sustained
even to martyrdom by the invincible power of
God, whereby he boldly overcomes the greatest
terrors, and is accounted worthy of a crown of
glory by him to whom he has thus nobly tcsti-
1 Literally and better, " through the confession." It refers to
those wlio are technically known as confessors. Although in gen-
eral tlie distinction prevails by which those who have suffered, but not
unto death, are called " confessors," while those who lost their lives
are called "martyrs" (cf. Pseud-Cypr. de dupl. Mart. c. 31), yet
its use for martyrs is not uncommon (cf. Ambrose, ad C rattan, c. 2).
Later the term was used of all, especially faithful professors of Christ.
- Cf. John .wii. 3; i John v. 19-20.
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
571
fied.^ Nor does he himself assume the praise,
knowing full well that it is God who gives the
power both to endure, and to fulfill with ready
zeal the Divine commands. And well may such
a course as this receive the meed of never- failing
remembrance and everlasting honor. For as
the martyr's life is one of sobriety and obedience
to the will of God, so is his death an example
of true greatness and generous fortitude of soul.
Hence it is followed by hymns and psalms,
words and songs of praise to the all-seeing God :
and a sacrifice of thanksgiving is offered in
memory of such men, a bloodless, a harmless
sacrifice, wherein is no need of the fragrant
frankincense, no need of fire ; but only enough
of pure light ■* to suffice the assembled worship-
ers. Many, too, there are whose charitable spirit
leads them to prepare a temperate banquet for
the comfort of the needy, and the relief of those
who had been driven from their homes : a cus-
tom which can only be deemed burdensome^
by those whose thoughts are not accordant with
the divine and sacred doctrine.
CHAPTER XHI.
That there is a Necessary Difference betiveen
Created Things. That the Propensity to Good
and Evil depends on the Will of Man ; and
that, consequently. Judgment is a Necessary
and Reasonable Thing.
There are, indeed, some who venture with
childish presumption to find fiiult with God in
respect of this also, and ask why it is that he
has not created one and the same natural dis-
position for all, but rather has ordained the
existence of many things different, nay, contrary
in their nature, whence arises the dissimilarity
of our moral conduct and character. Would it
not (say they) have been better, both as regards
obedience to the commands of God, and a just
apprehension of himself, and for the confirma-
tion of individual faith, that all mankind should
be of the same moral character? It is indeed
ridiculous to expect that this could be the case,
and to forget that the constitution of the world
is different from that of the things that are in
the world ; that physical and moral objects are
not identical in their nature, nor the affections
of the body the same as those of the soul. [For
the immortal soul far exceeds the material world
3 This translation " to whom" accords with the reading of Vale-
sius, followed by ibil, Molz.," Zimmermann," Cons, ("whose
cause he has sustained"), but Hein. adopts the reading "who,"
preceded by Chr., who translates " who himself bravely endured
martyrdom."
^ [Alluding to the tapers, &c., lighted at the tombs of martyrs on
the anniversary of their death. — /f'Z.?'-] Compare Scudamore,
Lights, The Ceremonial Use of, in Smith and Cheetham, Diet, i
(1880), 993 sq.
'■' "Vulgar."
in dignity, and is more blessed than the perish-
able and terrestrial creation, in proportion as it
is noble and more allied to God.'] Nor is the
human race excluded from participation in the
divine goodness ; though this is not the lot of
all indiscriminately, but of those only who search
deeply into the Divine nature, and propose the
knowledge of sacred things as the leading object
of their lives.
CHAPTER XIV.
That Created Nature differs infinitely from Un-
created Being; to which Man makes the
Nearest Approach by a Life of Virtue.
Surely it must be the very height of folly to
compare created with eternal things, which latter
have neither beginning nor end, while the
former, having been originated and called into
being, and having received a commencement
of their existence at some definite time, must
consequently, of necessity have an end. How
then can things which have thus been made,
bear comparison with him who has ordained
their being? Were this the case,^ the power
to command their existence could not rightly
be attributed to him. Nor can celestial things
be compared to him, any more than the mate-
rial " with the intellectual ^ world, or copies with
the models from which they are formed. Nay,
is it not absurd thus to confound all things, and
to obscure the honor of God by comparing
him with men, or even with beasts ? And is it
not characteristic of madmen, utterly estranged
from a life of sobriety and virtue, to affect a
power equivalent to that of God? If indeed
we in any sense aspire to blessedness like that
of God, our duty is to lead a life according to
his commandments : so shall we, having finished
a course consistent with the laws which he has
prescribed, dwell for ever superior to the power
of fate, in eternal and undecaying mansions.
For the only power in man which can be ele-
vated to a comparison with that of God, is
sincere and guileless service and devotion of
heart to himself, with the contemplation and
study of whatever pleases him, the raising our
affections above the things of earth, and direct-
ing our thoughts, as far as we may, to high and
heavenly objects : for from such endeavors, it is
said, a victory accrues to us more valuable than
1 [The text of this passage is defective. The conjectural restora-
tion of Valesius, which seems probable, is chiefly followed. — Bag.^
Heinichen, like Christophorson and Savil before him, "does not
hesitate," with one of the MSS., to omit this passage.
1 This is following with Heinichen, and meets the conjecture of
Valesius as over against the MSS. and other conjectures, \vhich, sub-
stituting ^J.a.\lla. for ii/ioia, read "for if it be madness to liken these
things to him," &c.
- Or " sensible "; i.e. world of sense or perception.
3 This is the word often rendered by Bag. as " spiritual."
572
CONSTANTINE.
many blessings.* The cause, then, of that dif-
ference which subsists, as regards the inequaHty
both of dignity and power in created beings, is
such as I have described. In this the wise
acquiesce with abundant thankfulness and joy :
while those who are dissatisfied, display their
own folly, and their arrogance will reap its due
reward.
CHAPTER XV.
Of the Sa7no!/r's Doctrines and Miracles ; and
the Benefits he confers on tJiose who ojun
Subjection to him.
The Son of God invites all men to the prac-
tice of virtue, and presents himself to all who
have understanding hearts, as the teacher of
his saving precepts.^ Unless, indeed, we will
deceive ourselves, and remain in wretched igno-
rance of the fact, that for our advantage, that is,
to secure the blessing of the human race, he
went about upon earth ; and, having called
around him the best men of their age, com-
mitted to them instructions full of profit, and of
power to preserve them in the path of a virtu-
ous life ; teaching them the faith and righteous-
ness which are the true remedy against the ad-
verse power of that malignant spirit whose
delight it is to ensnare and delude the inexperi-
enced. Accordingly he visited the sick, relieved
the infirm from the ills which afflicted them, and
consoled those who felt the extremity of penury
and want. He commended also sound and
rational sobriety of character, enjoining his fol-
lowers to endure, with dignity and patience,
every kind of injury and contempt : teaching
them to regard such as visitations permitted by
their Father, and the victory is ever theirs who
nobly bear the evils which befall them. For he
assured them that the highest strength of all
consisted in this steadfastness of soul, com-
bined with that })hilosophy which is nothing
else than the knowledge of truth and goodness,
producing in men the generous habit of sharing
with their poorer brethren those riches which
they have themselves acquired by honorable
means. At the same time he utterly forbade
all proud oppression, declaring that, as he had
come to associate with the lowly, so those who
despised the lowly would be excluded from his
favor. Such and so great was the test whereby
he proved the faith of those who owned alle-
giance to his authority, and thus he not only
prepared them for the contempt of danger and
•* This is supposed to refer to Kev. ii. 7-10; iii. 11, &c. It might
well have in mind Col. iii. 2-4, or best of all Rev. xxi. 7, as contain-
ing the thought of victory {vi.Ka.io ^ " overcome ") .
' This accords with the " marginof the Geneva Edition," and men-
tioned by Valesius, who gives also " in the Saviour's commands"
and " in the Father's commands," which latter is adopted by Hein-
ichen.
terror, but taught them at the same time the
most genuine confidence in himself. Once,
too, his rebuke was uttered to restrain the zeal
of one of his companions, who yielded too easily
to the impulse of passion, when he assaulted
with the sword, and, eager to protect his Sav-
iour's life, exposed his own. Then it was that
he bade him desist, and returned his sword to its
sheath, reproving him for his distrust of refuge
and safety in himself, and declaring solemnly that
all who should essay to retaliate an injury by like
aggression, or use the sword, should perish by a
violent death.^ This is indeed heavenly wisdom,
to choose rather to endure than to inflict injury,
and to be ready, should necessity so require, to
suffer, but not to do, wrong. For since injuri-
ous conduct is in itself a most serious evil, it is
not the injured party, but the injuring, on whom
the heaviest punishment must fall. It is indeed
possible for one who is subject to the will of
God to avoid the evil both of committing and
of suffering injury, provided his confidence be
firm in the protection of that God whose aid is
ever present to shield his servants from harm.
For how should that man who trusts in God
attempt to seek for resources in himself? In
such a case he must abide the conflict with un-
certainty of victory : and no man of understand-
ing could prefer a doubtful to a certain issue.
Again, how can that man doubt the presence
and aid of God, who has had experience of
manifold dangers, and has at all times been
easily delivered, at his simple nod, from all
terrors : who has passed, as it were, through
the sea which was leveled by the Saviour's
word, and afforded a solid road for the passage
of the people? This is, I believe, the sure basis
of faith, the true foundation of confidence, that
we find such miracles as these performed and
perfected at the command of the God of Provi-
dence. Hence it is that even in the midst of
trial we find no cause to repent of our faith, but
retain an unshaken hope in God ; and when
this habit of confidence is established in the
soul, God himself dwells in the inmost thoughts.
But he is of invincible power : the soul, there-
fore, which has within it him who is thus invin-
cible, wiU not be overcome by the perils which
may surround it. Likewise,^ we learn this truth
from the victory of God himself, who, while in-
tent on providing for the blessing of mankind,
though grievously insulted by the malice of the
ungodly, yet passed unharmed through the suf-
ferings of his passion, and gained a mighty con-
quest, an everlasting crown of triumph, over all
2 Matt. xxvi. >;2: for "all they that take the sword shall per-
ish by the sword." Note the charnctcristic inflation of style. Mat-
thew takes eight word*;, the English translators twelve, Constantine
sixteen, and his translator twenty-two ponderous words.
•'' Val. prefers irpos r" besides") to wapa (" likewise, at the same
time ") , and is followed by Bag.
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
573
iniquity ; thus accomplishing the purpose of
liis own providence and love as regards the
just, and destroying the cruelty of the impious
and unjust.
CHAPTER XVI.
The Coming of Christ was predicted hy the
Prophets ; and was ordained to be the Over-
throw of Idols and Idolatrous Cities.
Long since had his passion, as well as his
advent in the flesh, been predicted by the
l)rophets. The time, too, of his incarnation had
been foretold, and the manner in which the fruits
of iniquity and profligacy, so ruinous to the works
and ways of righteousness, should be destroyed,
and the whole world partake of the virtues of
wisdom and sound discretion, through the almost
universal prevalence of those principles of con-
duct which the Saviour should promulgate, over
the minds of men ; whereby the worship of God
should be confirmed, and the rites of supersti-
tion utterly abolished. By these not the slaugh-
ter of animals alone, but the sacrifice of human
victims, and the pollutions of an accursed wor-
ship, had been devised : as, for example, by the
laws of Assyria and Egypt, the lives of innocent
men were offered up in images of brass or earth.
Therefore have these nations received a recom-
pense worthy so foul a worship. Memphis and
Babylon [it was declared] ^ shall be wasted, and
left desolate with their fathers' gods. Now
these things I speak not from the report of
others, but having myself been present, and
actually seen the most wretched of these cities,
the unfortunate Memphis.^ Moses desolated, at
the Divine command, the land of the once
mighty Pharaoh, whose arrogance was his de-
struction,^ and destroyed his army (which had
proved victorious over numerous and mighty
nations, an army strong in defenses and in
arms), not by the flight of arrows or the hurl-
ing of hostile weapons, but by holy prayer alone,
and quiet supplication.
CHAPTER XVn.
Of the Wisdom of Moses, which was an Object
of Imitation to the Wise among Heathen
Nations. Also concerning Daniel, and the
Three Children.
No nation has ever been more highly blessed
than that which Moses led : none would have
continued to enjoy higher blessings, had they
not willingly withdrawn themselves from the
guidance of the Holy Spirit. But who can
worthily describe the praises of Moses himself;
who, after reducing to order an unruly nation,
and disciplining their minds ' to habits of obe-
dience and respect, out of captivity restored
them to a state of freedom, turned their mourn-
ing into gladness, and so far elevated their minds,^
that, through the excess of contrast with their
former circumstances, and the abundance of
their prosperity, the spirit of the people was
elated with haughtiness and pride ? So far did
he surpass in wisdom those who had lived before
him, that even the wise men and philosophers -
who are extolled by heathen nations aspired to
imitate his wisdom. For Pythagoras, following
his wisdom, attained to such a pitch of self-
control, that he became to Plato, himself a
model of discretion, the standard of his own
self-mastery. Again, how great and terrible
the cruelty of that ancient Syrian king, over
whom Daniel triumphed, the prophet who un-
folded the secrets of futurity, whose actions
evinced transcendent greatness of soul, and the
luster of whose character and life shone con-
spicuous above all? The name of this tyrant
was Nebuchadnezzar, whose race afterward be-
came extinct, and his vast and mighty power
was transferred to Persian hands. The wealth
of this tyrant was then, and is even now, cele-
brated far and wide, as well as his ill-timed
devotion to unlawful worship, his idol statues,
lifting their heads to heaven, and formed of
various metals, and the terrible and savage laws
ordained to uphold this worship. These terrors
Daniel, sustained by genuine piety towards the
true God, utterly despised, and predicted that
the tyrant's unseasonable zeal would be produc-
tive of fearful evil to himself. He failed, how-
ever, to convince the tyrant (for excessive wealth
is an effectual barrier to true soundness of judg-
ment) , and at length the monarch displayed the
savage cruelty of his character, by commanding
that the righteous prophet should be exposed to
the fury of wild beasts. Noble, too, indeed was
the united spirit exhibited by those brethren^
(whose example others have since followed, and
1 Not in text. This parenthesis is the least obnoxious of various
proposed paraphrases.
2 Probably refers to its destruction by Diocletian, whom Con-
stantine accompanied. See Prolegomena, Li/c, Early Years.
3 The text of this passage is most dubious. Bag., following
Valesius, translates: "And an actual witness of the wretched fate
which has befallen these cities. Memphis lies desolate ; that city
which was the pride of the once mighty Pharaoh whose power
Moses crushed at the Divine command." This has been changed
to accord with the text and punctuation of Heinichen. The change
makes Constantine declare himself an eye-witness of the fate of
Memphis alone, which is thought to accord with the facts; for
while he was in fact in Egypt with Diocletian, there is no evidence
that he ever saw Babylon. And yet it is possible he did.
1 " Souls."
- The sage commentators on this passage have thought it incum-
bent to explain and, as it were, apologize for the apparent tautology,
" wise men or philosophers, — whichever you choose to call them
{Val. and Hein.). Colloquially speaking, there is a vast difierence
between being a philosopher and being a wise man. Probably this
is no slip of style nor gracious option of language such as the editors
impute, but some more or less clear distinction of technic.il terms.
3 " Spirit exhibited by these brethren in suffering martyrdom."
574
CONSTANTINE.
have won surpassing glory by their faith in the
Saviour's name),* those, I mean, who stood un-
harmed in the fiery furnace, and the terrors
appointed to devour them, repelHng by the
holy touch of their bodies the flame by which
they were surrounded. On the overthrow of
the Assyrian Empire, which was destroyed by
thunderbolts from Heaven,^ the providence of
God conducted Daniel to the court of Cambyses
the Persian king. Yet envy followed him even
here ; nor envy only, but the deadly plots of the
magians against his life, with a succession of
many and urgent dangers, from all which he
was easily delivered by the providential care of
Christ," and shone conspicuous in the practice
of every virtue. Three times in the day did he
present his prayers to God, and memorable were
the proofs of supernatural power which he dis-
played : and hence the magians, filled with
envy at the very efficacy of his petitions, repre-
sented the possession of such power to the kmg
as fraught with danger, and prevailed on him to
adjudge this distinguished benefactor of the
Persian people to be devoured by savage lions.
Daniel, therefore, thus condemned, was con-
signed to the lions' den (not indeed to suffer
death, but to win unfading glory) ; and though
surrounded by these ferocious beasts of prey,
he found them more gentle than the men who
had enclosed him there. Supported by the
power of calm and steadfast prayer, he was en-
abled to subdue all these animals, ferocious as,
by nature, they were. Cambyses, on learning
the event (for so mighty a proof of Divine
power could not possibly be concealed), amazed
at the marvelous story, and repenting the too
easy credence he had given to the slanderous
charges of the magians, resolved, notwithstand-
ing, to be himself a witness of the spectacle.
But when he saw the prophet with uplifted
hands rendering praises to Christ, and the lions
crouching, and as it were worshiping, at his
feet, immediately he adjudged the magians, to
whose persuasions he had listened, to perish by
the self-same sentence, and shut them up in the
lions' den.' The beasts, erewhile so gentle,
rushed at once upon their victims, and with all
the fierceness of their nature tore and destroyed
them all.^
* Molz. remarks tliat to get any intelligent meaning out of this
mass of sounding words, the translator often has to guess and trans-
late very freely.
s ['Ai-aipeSeiVT;? KipavvZtv ^oXai';. This must be regarded as a
rhetorical rather than historical allusion to the extinction of the
Assyrian Empire. The critical reader will not fail to mark occa-
sional instances of inaccuracy and looseness of statement in this
chapter, and generally in the course of the oration. — Hag.] Vale-
sius objects to this passage as follows in the language of /y//:
" Neither do I well understand that. For Men, Towns, and Cities
may be destroyed by Thunder-ljnlls, . . . But, truly I can't see how
a kingdom could be ruined by 'I'hunder."
* Constantine evidently believed in an eternal Christ.
'' " He adjudged to perish by the self-same sentence, and shut
them up in the lions' den," is bracketed by Valesius and the second
clause omitted by Ba^.
CHAPTER XVIII.
0/ the EryiJircean Sibyl, wJio pointed in a Pro-
phetic Acrostic at our Lord and his Passion.
The Acrostic is "Jesus Christ, Son of God,
Saviour, Cross^
My desire, however, is to derive even from
foreign sources a testimony to the Divine nature
of Christ. For on such testimony it is evident
that even those who blaspheme his name must
acknowledge that he is God, and the Son of
God if indeed they will accredit the words of
those whose sentiments coincided with their
own.^ The Erythraean Sibyl, then, who herself
assures us that she lived in the sixth generation
after the flood, was a priestess of Apollo, who
wore the sacred fillet in imitation of the God
she served, who guarded also the tripod encom-
passed with the serpent's folds, and returned
pro])hetic answers to those who approached her
shrine ; having been devoted by the folly of her
parents to this service, a service productive of
nothing good or noble, but only of indecent
fury, such as we find recorded in the case of
Daphne.^ On one occasion, however, having
rushed into the sanctuary of her vain supersti-
tion, she became really filled with inspiration
from above, and declared in prophetic verses
the future purposes of God ; plainly indicating
the advent of Jesus by the initial letters of these
verses, forming an acrostic in these words :
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross.
The verses themselves are as follows :
Judgment! Earth's oozing pores ^ shall mark the day;
Earth's heavenly king his glories shall display:
Sovereign of all, exalted on his throne,
Unnumbered multitudes their God shall own;
Shall see their Judge, with mingled joy and fear,
Crowned with his saints, in human form appear.
How vain, while desolate earth's glories lie.
Riches, and pomp, and man's idolatry !
In that dread hour, when Nature's fiery doom
Startles the slumb'ring tenants of the tomb.
Trembling all flesh shall stand; each secret wile.
Sins long forgotten, thoughts of guilt and guile,
Open beneath God's searching light shall lie:
No refuge then, but hopeless agony.
O'er heaven's expanse shall gathering shades of night
From earth, sun, stars, and moon, withchaw their light;
God's arm shall crush each mountain's towering pride;
On ocean's plain no more shall navies ride.
Dried at the source, no river's rushing sound
Shall soothe, no fountain slake the jiarched ground.
Around, afar, shall roll the trumpet's blast.
Voice of wrath long delayed, revealed at last. Wk
In speechless awe, while earth's foundations groan, ■ '
On judgment's seat earth's kings their God shall own.
^ " Eliminated them all." Valesius calls attention to the char-
acteristic slight inaccuracies of our author! e.g. in the Biblical ac-
count (i) it was not the magi; (2) it was not Cambyses.
• " Of their own selves."
- [Daughter of Tiresias, and priestess at Delphi. She was called
Sibyl, on account of the wildness of her looks and expressions when
she delivered oracles (Lempriere in voc). — Bag.]
5 ['I5pui<rti -^iip \Oiav, K.T.\. — Bug.]
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
575
Uplifted then, in majesty divine,
Radiant with Hght, behold Salvation's Sign !
Cross of that Lord, who, once for sinners given.
Reviled by man, now owned by eartli and heaven,
O'er every land extends his iron sway.
Such is the name these mystic lines display;
Saviour, eternal king, who bears our sins away.*
It is evident that the virgin uttered these
verses under the influence of Divine inspiration.
And I cannot but esteem her blessed, whom
the Saviour thus selected to unfold his gracious
purpose towards us.
CHAPTER XIX.
That this Prophecy respecting our Saviour was
not the Fiction of any Member of the Chris-
tian Church, but the Testimony of the Ery-
thman Sibyl, whose Books ivere transhitcd
into Latin by Cicero before the coining of
Christ. Also that P'irgil makes mention of
the same, and of the Birth of the Firgin^s
Child: though he spoke obscurely of this Mys-
tery from Fear of the Ruling Powers.
* [It can scarcely be necessary to observe that the acrostic, the
general sense of which has been aimed at in the above translation,
must be regarded as the pious fiction of some writer, whose object
was to recommend the truth of Christianity to heathens by an appeal
to the authority of an (alleged) ancient heathen prophecy. — l^'^£-]
The quotation is found in the edition of Alexandre, Bk. VIII. ch.
219-250. (Cf. translation in Augustin, De cw. Dei.) The transla-
tion of Bag:, giving the " general sense " and reproducing the acros-
tic, stands unchanged. The translation of 1709, much more vigorous
and suggestive of the " Dies Irae," is as follows:
" When the Great Day of Judgment shall appear.
The melting Earth shall then dissolve with fear;
A King Immortal shall from Heav'n descend,
At whose Tribunal the whole world attend.
Both Just and Wicked shall, when Time grows old,
Their mighty God in flesh array'd behold;
Armies of Saints on His Right hand shall come,
Whilst Humane Souls expect their final doom.
Th' Universe shall be a dry, Barren Strand,
And Thorns sha'l flourish on the scorched land;
Men shall with indignation cast away
Their Wealth and Idols in that dreadful day.
The parching Earth, and Heaven in flames shall fry,
And searching fire drain the Ocean dry:
All flesh which in the Grave imprison'd lay.
Shake off their Fetters, and return to Day.
Fire 'twixt Good and Bad shall diff'rence make.
And filthy Dross from purer Metal take.
Man's secret Deeds shall all be open lay'd.
And th' obscure Mazes of their Hearts displayed;
Gnashing their Teeth, they shall their Fate bewail:
The stars harmonious daunce, and th' Sun shall fail.
The Orbs roU'd up, shrink into darkest night,
The Labouring Moon shall lose her borrowed light.
Mountains with Plains on the same Level lye;
Vallies shall gape no more, nor Hills be high.
On the proud Billows Ships shall ride no more:
And Lightning the Earth's Face shall shrivel sore.
The crackling Rivers with fierce Fire shall burn.
Which shall their streams to solid Crystal turn.
The Heav'nly Trump shall blow a doleful sound.
And th' world's destruction, and its sin resound.
The yawning Earth Hell's vast Abyss shall shew ;
All Kings before God's just Tribunal go.
Then Liquid Sulphur from the Sky shall stream,
God shall pour down Rivers of vengeful flame;
All men shall then the Glorious Cross descry.
That wished-for sign unto a faithful eye:
The Life of pious Souls, their chief delight;
To Sinners an Offence, a dismal sight!
Enlightening the called with its beams.
When cleansed from sin in twice six limpid streams.
His Empire shall be boundless, and that God
Shall Rule the Wicked with an Iron Rod;
This God, Immortal King, describ'd in Verse,
Our Saviour, dying, shall man's doom Reverse."
Man\', however, who admit that the Erythraean
Sibyl was really a prophetess, yet refuse to credit
this prediction, and imagine that some one pro-
fessing our faith, and not unacquainted with the
poetic art, was the composer of these verses.
They hold, in short, that they are a forgery, and
alleged to be the prophecies of the Sibyl on the
ground of their containing useful moral senti-
ments, tending to restrain licentiousness, and
to lead man to a life of sobriety and decorum.
Truth, however, in this case is evident, since
the diligence of our countrymen' has made a
careful computation of the times ; so that there
is no room to suspect that this poem was com-
posed after the advent and condemnation of
Christ, or that the general report is false, that
the verses were a prediction of the Sibyl in an
early age. For it is allowed that Cicero was
acquainted with this poem, which he translated
into the Latin tongue, and incorporated with
his own works." This writer was put to death
during the ascendancy of Antony, who in his
turn was conquered by Augustus, whose reign
lasted fifty-six years. Tiberius succeeded, in
whose age it was that the Saviour's advent en-
lightened the world, the mystery of our most
holy religion began to prevail, and as it were a
new race of men commenced : of which, I sup-
pose, the prince of Latin poets thus speaks :
Behold, a new, a heaven-born race appears.^
And again, in another passage of the Bucolics ;
Sicilian Muses, sound a loftier strain.
What can be clearer than this ? For he adds,
The voice of Cuma's oracle is heard again.*
Evidently referring to the Cumsean Sibyl. Nor
was even this enough : the poet goes further, as
if irresistibly impelled to bear his testimony.
What then does he say ?
Behold ! the circling years new blessings bring :
The virgin comes, with her the long-desired king.^
1 " Our men," i.e. Christians rather than " countrymen."
- [The passage in Cicero {De Divinationc, Bk. II. ch. 54) clearly
does not refer to this acrostic, and contains in itself a plain denial of
prophetic truth in the Sibylline prediction (whatever it was) which
the writer had in view. " Non esse autem illud carmen furentis,
cum ipsum poema declaret (est enim magis artiset diligentia;, quam
incitationis et motus), tum verb ea, qua; aKpo<TTi,\i? dicitur, cum
deinceps ex primis versuum litteris aliquid connectitur, ut in quibus-
dam Cumanis, id certe magis est attenti animi, quam furentis," &c.
— Bag.^^
3 "This and following quotations are found in the fourth eclogue
of Virgil — ihc PoUio. "The version of 5a^. is allowed to stand. If
farther variety of rendering and interpretation is desired, it can be
found in charming profusion in the various English translations
of Virgil of which the few at hand give ample promise. Those at
hand are Ogilby, Lond., 1675, p. 41-49; Warton, Lond., 1763, p. 76-
82; Trapp, Lond., 1755,?. 37-46; Kennedy, Lond., 1849, p. 25-29;
Wilstach, Bost., 1884, p. 154-161; Bowen, Lond., 1887, p. 24-28.
Compare Henley, Observations on the Subject of the Fourth Ec-
lo^e, etc., Lond., 1788. 8vo.
^ Here is variety indeed. 77/7 renders, " Last times are come
Cumaea's prophecy," — whatever that may mean. Molz. has " Now
the voice of the famed oracle of Cumae is dumb."
. ^ Constantine takes large liberty with the poet here in order to
576
CONSTANTINE.
Who, then, is the virgin who was to come? Is
it not she who was filled with, and with child of,
the Holy Spirit ? And why is it impossible that
she who was with child of the Holy Spirit should
be, and ever continue to be a virgin? This
king, too, will return, and by his coming lighten
the sorrows of the world. The poet adds,
Thou, chaste Lucina, greet the new-born child,
Beneath whose reign the iron offspring ends,
A golden progeny from heaven descends;
His kingdom banished virtue shall restore,
And crime shall threat the guilty world no more.
We perceive that these words are spoken plainly
and at the same time darkly, by way of allegory.
Those who search deeply for the import of the
words, are able to discern the Divinity of Christ.
But lest any of the powerful in the imperial city
might be able to accuse the poet of writing any-
thing contrary to the laws of the country, and
subverting the religious sentiments which had
prevailed from ancient times, he intentionally
obscures the truth. For he was acquainted, as
I believe, with that blessed mystery which gave
to our Lord the name of Saviour : *" but, that he
might avoid the severity of cruel men, he drew
the thoughts of his hearers to objects with which
they were familiar, saying that altars must be
erected, temples raised, and sacrifices offered to
the new-born child. His concluding words also
are adapted to the sentiments of those who were
accustomed to such a creed ; for he says :
CHAPTER XX.
A Faf'thcr Quoiation from Vir^iliiis Maj'o re-
specting Christ, toith its Interpretation, sliozu-
ing that the Mystery was indicated therein
darkly, as might be expected from a Poet.
A life immortal he shall lead, and be
By heroes seen, himself shall heroes see;
evidently meaning the righteous.
The jarring nations he in peace shall bind,
And with paternal virtues rule mankind.
Unbidden earth her earliest fruits shall bring,
And fragrant herbs, to greet her infant king.
Well indeed was this admirably wise and accom-
plished man accjuainted with the cruel character
of the times. He proceeds :
The goats, uncall'd, full udders home shall bear;
The lowing herds no more fierce lions fear.
Truly said : for fliith will not stand in awe of
the mighty in the imperial palace.
malce him say what he would like to have had him say. The latest
translation at hand (Bowcn) renders:
' Now is the world's grand cycle begun once more from of old;
''istice the Virgin comes, and the Saturn Kingdom again."
'''he blessed and salutary mystery of our Saviour." — tjoq.
-' of salvation." — Molz.
His cradle shall with rising flowers Ise crown'd :
The serpent's brood shall die; the sacred ground
Shall weeds and poisonous plants refuse to bear;
Each common bush th' Assyrian rose ^ shall wear.
Nothing could be said more true or more con-
sistent with the Saviour's excellency than this.
For the power of the Divine Spirit presents the
very cradle of God, hke fragrant flowers, to the
new-born race.^ The serpent, too, and the venom
of that serpent, perishes, who originally beguiled
our first parents, and drew their thoughts from
their native innocence ^ to the enjoyment of
pleasures, that they might experience'* that
threatened death. For before the Saviour's
advent, the serpent's power was shown in sub-
verting the souls of those who were sustained
by no well-grounded hope, and ignorant of that
immortality which awaits the righteous. But
after that he had suffered, and was separated for
a season from the body which he had assumed,
the power of the resurrection was revealed to
man through the communication of the Holy
Spirit : and whatever stain of human guilt might
yet remain was removed by the washing of
sacred lustrations.
Then indeed could the Saviour bid his fol-
lowers be of good cheer, and, remembering his
adorable and glorious resurrection, expect the
like for themselves. Truly, then, the poisonous
race may be said to be extinct. Death himself
is extinct, and the truth of the resurrection
sealed. Again, the Assyrian race is gone, which
first led the way to faith in God.^ But when he
speaks of the growth of amomum every where,
he alludes to the multitude of the true worship-
ers of God.*' For it is as though a multitude
of branches, crowned with fragrant flowers, and
fitly watered, sprung from the self-same root.
Most justly said, Maro, thou wisest of poets !
and with this all that follows is consistent.
But when heroic worth his youth shall hear,
And learn his father's virtues to revere.
By the praises of heroes, he indicates the works
of righteous men : by the virtues of his Father
he speaks of the creation and everlasting struct-
ure of the world : and, it may be, of those laws
by which God's beloved Church is guided, and
ordered in a course of righteousness and virtue.
Admirable,
again,
is the advance to higher
' [Amomimi. — Bag.'\ "Assyrian cinnamon," Kennedy, p. 28;
" the cardamon's spice shall grow, That from Assyria's gardens,"
Wilstach, I, p. 157; "Syrian spices," 'I'rapp, i,p. 92: "Assyria's
rich perfume," Warton, i, p. 78; " Assyrian roses," Ogilby, p. 42.
- [i.e. the Christians. — iiaS-\
■' Self-control.
* " Might «o^ experience," according to some, including Hein-
ichen, who rejects in first, but accepts in text of his second edition.
^ [Referring, apparently, to Abraham. This passage is founded
on a misconstruction of Virgil's line by Constantine, which is fol-
lowed by the Greek verse itself according to one edition. — Bag.'\
" [By a kind of play on the word amomum, he alludes to the
Christians as a/Liu>/u.oi, or blameless persons. — Ba£.\
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
577
things of that state of Hfe which is intermediate,
as it were, between good and evil, and which
seliiom admits a sudden change :
Unlabored Imrvcsts shall the lields adorn,''
that is, the fruit of the Divine law springs up
for the service of men.
And clustered grapes shall blush on every thorn.
Far otherwise has it been during the corrupt
and lawless period of human life.
The knotted oaks shall showers of honey weep.^
He here describes the folly and obduracy of the
men of that age ; and perhaps he also intimates
that they who suffer hardships in the cause of
God, shall reap sweet fruits of their own en-
durance.
Yet, of old fraud some footsteps shall remain;
The merchant still shall plough the deep for gain :
Great cities shall with walls be compassed round,
And sharpened shares shall vex the fruitful ground :
Another Tiphys shall new seas explore;
Another Argo land the chiefs upon the Iberian shore;
Another Helen other wars create,
And great Achilles urge the Trojan fate.
AVell said, wisest of bards ! Thou hast carried
the license of a poet precisely to the proper
point. For it was not thy purpose to assume
the functions of a prophet, to which thou hadst
no claim. I suppose also he was restrained by
a sense of the danger which threatened one
who should assail the credit of ancient religious
practice. Cautiously, therefore, and securely,
as far as possible, he presents the truth to those
who have faculties to understand it ; and while
he denounces the munitions and conflicts of
war " (which indeed are still to be found in the
course of human life), he describes our Saviour
as proceeding to the war against Troy, under-
standing by Troy the world itself.^" And surely
he did maintain the struggle against the oppos-
ing powers of evil, sent on that mission both by
the designs of his own providence and the com-
mandment of his Almighty Father. How, then,
does the poet proceed ?
But when to ripen'd manhood he shall grow,
that is, when, having arrived at the age of man-
hood, he shall utterly remove the evils which
' " The fields shall mellow wax with golden grain."
' Bag. adds:
" And through the matted grass the liquid gold shall creep."
//ap translates:
" And th' hardened oaks with dewy honey sweat."
While Moh. has
" Forth from the hard oak stems the lovely honey flews."
These all approach Virgil closer than they do Constantine. With
all allowance for poetic license, " pine" should hardly be translated
" oak."
^ Literally, " times and wars." — Ijoq.
1" This, bad as it is, is hardly worse than the subjective interpre-
tation of Scripture by modern allegorizers, and certainly no worse
1 than some of the Scripture interpretations of Eusebius.
encompass the path of human life, and tran-
quilize the world by the blessings of peace :
The greedy sailor shall the seas forego;
No keel shall cut the waves for foreign ware.
For every soil shall every product bear.
The laboring hind his oxen shall disjoin;
No plough shall hurt the glebe, no pruning-hook the vine;
Nor wool shall in dissembled colors shine :
But the luxurious father of the fold.
With native purple, and unborrow'd gold.
Beneath his pompous fleece shall proudly sweat;
And under Tyrian robes the lamb shall bleat.
Mature in years, to ready honors move,
O of celestial seed, O foster son of Jove !
See, laboring nature calls thee to sustain
The nodding frame of heaven, and earth, and main !
See to their base restored, earth, seas, and air;
And joyful ages, from behind, in crowding ranks appear.
To sing thy praise, would heaven my breath prolong.
Infusing spirits worthy such a song,
Not Thracian Orpheus should transcend my lays.
Nor Linus, crown'd with never-fading bays;
Though each his heavenly parent should inspire;
The Muse instruct the voice, and Phosbus tune the lyre.
Should Pan contend in verse, and thou my theme.
Arcadian judges should their God condemn. ^
Behold (says he) how the mighty world and the
elements together manifest their joy.
CHAPTER XXI.
That these Things cantiot have been spoken of a
Mere Alan : and that Unbelievers, ozving to
their Ignorance of Religion, know not even
the Oj'igin of their own Existence.
It may be some will foolishly suppose that
these words were spoken of the birth of a mere
ordinary mortal. But if this were all, what rea-
son could there be that the earth should need
neither seed nor plough, that the vine should
require no pruning-hook, or other means of
culture ? How can we suppose these things to be
spoken of a mere mortal's birth ? For nature is
the minister of the Divine will, not an instrument
obedient to the command of man. Indeed, the
very joy of the elements indicates the advent of
God, not the conception of a human being.
The prayer, too, of the poet that his life might
be prolonged is a proof of the Divinity of him
whom he invoked ; for we desire life and preser-
vation from God, and not from man. Indeed,
the Erythraean Sibyl thus appeals to God :
"Why, O Lord, dost thou compel me still to
foretell the future, and not rather remove me
from this earth to await the blessed day of thy
coming?" And Maro adds to what he had
said before :
^' [The reader will perceive that the foregoing verses, with but
little exception, and very slight alteration, are taken from Drvden's
translation of the fourth eclogue of Virgil. — Bae'.^
VOL. I.
Pp
578
CONSTANTINE.
Begin, sweet boy ! with smiles thy mother know,
Who ten long months did with thy burden go.
No mortal parents smiled upon thy birth :
No nuptial joy thou know'st, no feast of earth.
How could his parents have smiled on him?
For his Father ^ is God, who is a Power with-
out sensible quality,- existing, not in any defi-
nite shape, but as comprehending other beings,^
and not, therefore, in a human body. And
who knows not that the Holy Spirit has no
participation in the nuptial union? For what
desire can exist in the disposition of that good
which all things else desire? What fellowship,
in short, can wisdom hold with pleasure ? But
let these arguments be left to those who ascribe
to him a human origin, and who care not to
purify themselves from all evil in word as well
as deed. On thee. Piety, I call to aid my
words, on thee who art the very law of purity,
most desirable of all blessings, teacher of holiest
hope, assured proinise of immortality ! Thee,
Piety, and thee, Clemency, I adore. We who
have obtained thine aid'* owe thee everlasting
gratitude for thy healing power. But the multi-
tudes whom their innate hatred of thyself de-
prives of thy succor, are equally estranged from
God himself, and know not that the very cause
of their life and being, and that of all the ungodly,
is connected with the rightful worship of him
who is Lord of all : for the world itself is his,
and all that it contains.
CHAPTER XXH.
77^1? Emperor thankfully ascribes his Victo7'ies
and all other Blessings to Christ; and con-
dejnns the Conduct of the Tyrant Maximin,
the Violence of whose Persecution had en-
hanced the Glory of Religion.
To thee. Piety, I ascribe the cause of my own
prosperity, and of all that I now possess. To
this truth the happy issue of all my endeavors
bears testimony : brave deeds, victories in war,
and triumphs over conquered foes. This truth
the great city itself allows with joy and praise.
The people, too, of that much-loved city accord
in the same sentiment, though once, deceived
by ill-grounded hopes, they chose a ruler un-
worthy of themselves,^ a ruler who speedily
received the chastisement which his audacious
deeds deserved. But be it far from me now to
' "Father" is emendation of Valesius embodied in his transla-
tion (1659), but not his text (1659). It is bracketed by Molz. " His
God [and Father]."
* " Pure force."
' In this form it sounds much like Pantheism, but in translation
oK Molz. this reads, "but determinable through the bounds of other
[existences]."
* So Valesius conjectures it should read, but the text of \'al. and
Hein. read, " We needy ones owe," &c.
' [Maxentius (W. Lowth in loc). — Iiag.\
recall the memory of these events, while hold-
ing converse with thee, Piety, and essaying with
earnest endeavor to address thee with holy and
gentle words. Yet will I say one thing, which
haply shall not be unbefitting or unseemly. A
furious, a cruel, and implacable war was main-
tained by the tyrants against thee. Piety, and
thy holy churches : nor were there wanting
some in Rome itself who exulted at a calamity
so grievous to the jDublic weal. Nay, the battle-
field was prepared ; when thou didst stand forth,-
and i^resent thyself a voluntary victim, supported
by faith in God. Then indeed it was that the
cruelty of ungodly men, which raged incessantly
like a devouring fire, wrought for thee a won-
drous and ever memorable glory. Astonish-
ment seized the spectators themselves, when
they beheld the very executioners who tortured
the bodies of their holy victims wearied out,
and disgusted at the cruelties ; " the bonds
loosened, the engines of torture powerless, the
flames extinguished, while the suflerers pre-
served their constancy unshaken even for a
moment. What, then, hast thou gained by
these atrocious deeds, most impious of men ? *
And what was the cause of thy insane fury?
Thou wilt say, doubtless, these acts of thine
were done in honor of the gods. What gods
are these ? or what worthy conception hast thou
of the Divine nature ? Thinkest thou the gods
are subject to angry passions as thou art? Were
it so indeed, it had been better for thee to won-
der at their strange determination than obey
their harsh command, when they urged thee
to the unrighteous slaughter of innocent men.
Thou wilt allege, perhaps, the customs of thy
ancestors, and the opinion of mankind in gen-
eral, as the cause of this conduct. I grant the
fact : for those customs are very hke the acts
themselves, and proceed from the self- same
source of folly. Thou thoughtest, it may be,
that some special power resided in images
formed and fashioned by human art ; and hence
thy reverence, and diligent care lest they should
be defiled : those mighty and highly exalted
gods, thus dependent on the care of men !
CHAPTER XXni.
Of Christian Conduct. That God is pleased
with those who lead a Life of Virtue : and
that we must expect a Judgment and Future
Retribution.
Compare our religion with your own. Is
^ This passage clearly refers to the voluntary suflierings of the
martyrs. See the note of Valesius.
•• " At a loss to invent fresh cruelties," Bag.; " And perplexed
at the labor and trouble they met with," lyoq; "And reluctantly
pursuing their terrible work," Molz.
* Alluclint; to Miiximin, the most bitter persecutor of the Chris-
tians, as appears from the title of this chapter.
■Wictsv,
THE ORATION OF CONSTANTINE.
579
there not with us genuine concord, and un-
wearied love of others? If we reprove a fauU,
is not our object to admonish, not to destroy ;
our correction for safety, not for cruelty? Do
we not exercise, not only sincere faith towards
God, but fidelity in the relations of social life ?
Do we not pity the unfortunate? Is not ours
a life of simplicit)-, which disdains to cover evil
beneath tie mask of fraud and hypocrisy? Do
we not acknowledge the true dod, and his un-
divided sovereignty ? This is real godliness :
this is religion sincere and truly undefiled : this
is the life of wisdom ; and they who have it are
travelers, as it were, on a noble road which
leads to eternal life. For he who has entered
on such a course, and keeps his soul pure from
the pollutions of the body, does not wholly die :
rather may he be said to complete the service
appointed him by God, than to die. Again, he
who confesses allegiance to God is not easily
overborne by insolence or rage, but nobly stands
under the pressure of necessity and the trial
of his constancy is, as it vvere, a passport to the
favor of God. For we cannot doubt that the
Deity is pleased with excellence in human con-
duct. For it would be absurd indeed if the
powerful and the humble alike acknowledge
gratitude to those from whose services they re-
ceive benefit, and repay them by services in
return, and yet that he who is supreme and
sovereign of all, nay, who is Good itself, should
be negligent in this respect. Rather does he
follow us throughout the course of our lives, is
near us in every act of goodness, accepts, and
at once rewards our virtue and obedience ;
though he defers the full recompense to that
future period, when the actions of our lives shall
pass under his review, and when those who are
clear in that account shall receive the reward of
everlasting life, while the wicked shall be visited
with the penalties due to their crimes.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Of Decius, Valerian, and Aurelian, who expe-
7-ienced a Miserable End in consequence of
their Persecution of the Church.
To thee, Decius,^ I now appeal, who has
trampled with insult on the labors of the right-
eous : to thee, the hater of the Church, the
punisher of those who lived a holy life : what is
now thy condition after death? How hard and
wretched thy present circumstances ! Nay, the
interval before thy death gave proof enough of
thy miserable fate, when, overthrown with all
thine army on the plains of Scythia, thou didst
1 {Vide Euseb. Hisi. Ecchs. Bk. VI. ch. 39. Gibbon (ch. 16)
notices very leniently the persecution of Decius. — ii^S-\
expose the vaunted power of Rome to the con-
tempt of the Cioths. Thou, too, Valerian, who
didst manifest the same spirit of cruelty towards
the servants of God, hast afforded an example
of righteous judgment. A captive in the ene-
mies' hands, letl in chains while yet arrayed in
the purple and imperial attire, antl at last thy
skin stripped from thee, and preserved by com-
mand of Sapor the Persian king, thou hast left
a perpetual trophy of thy calamity. And thou,
Aurelian, fierce perpetrator of every wrong, how
signal was thy fall, when, in the midst of thy
wild career in Thrace, thou wast slain on the
public highway, and didst fill the furrows of the
road with thine impious blood !
CHAPTER XXV.
Of Diocletian, who ignobly abdicated^ the Impe-
rial Throne, and loas terrified by the Dread of
Lightning for his Persecution of the Church.
Diocletian, however, after the display of re-
lentless cruelty as a persecutor, evinced a con-
sciousness of his own guilt, and, owing to the
affliction of a disordered mind, endured the
confinement of a mean and separate dwelling."
What, then, did he gain by his active hostility
against our God ? Simply this, I believe, that
he passed the residue of his life in continual
dread of the lightning's stroke. Nicomedia
attests the fact ; eyewitnesses, of whom I my-
self am one, declare it. The palace, and the
emperor's private chamber were destroyed, con-
sumed by lightning, devoured by the fire of
heaven. Men of understanding hearts had in-
deed predicted the issue of such conduct ; for
they could not keep silence, nor conceal their
grief at such unworthy deeds ; but boldly and
openly expressed their feeling, saying one to
another : " What madness is this ? and what an
insolent abuse of power, that man should dare
to fight against God ; should deliberately insult
the most holy and just of all religions ; and plan,
without the slightest provocation, the destruc-
tion of so great a multitude of righteous per-
sons? O rare example of moderation to his
subjects ! Worthy instructor of his army in the
care and protection due to their fellow-citizens !
Men who had never seen the backs of a retreat-
ing army plunged their swords into the breasts
of their own countrymen ! " So great was the
effusion of blood shed, that if shed in battle with
barbarian enemies, it had been sufficient to pur-
1 Cf. Prolegomena, Lz/c.
- [The derangement of Diocletian appears to have been tem-
porary only. The causes of his abdication are not very clearly
ascertained; but he .seems to have meditated the step a considerable
time previously. See Gibbon, ch. 13, and the note of Valesius. —
Bag;.]
58o
CONSTANTINE.
chase a perpetual peace.'' At length, indeed,
the providence of God took vengeance on these
vinhallowed deeds ; but not without severe dam-
age to the state. For the entire army of the
emperor of whom I have just spoken, becoming
subject to the authority of a worthless person,'*
who had violently usurped the supreme author-
ity at Rome (when the providence of God re-
stored freedom to that great city), was destroyed
in several successive battles. And when we
remember the cries with which those who were
oppressed, and who ardently longed for their
native liberty, implored the help of God ; and
their praise and thanksgiving to him on the re-
moval of the evils under which they had groaned,
when that liberty was regained, and free and
equitable intercourse restored : do not these
things every way afford convincing proofs of the
providence of God, and his affectionate regard
for the interests of mankind ?
CHAPTER XXVI.
Hie Etnperor asc7-ibes his Personal Piety to God ;
mid shows that we are bound to seek Success
from God, and attribute it to him ; but to
cojisider Mistakes as the Result of our own
Negligence.
When men commend my services, which owe
their origin to the inspiration of Heaven, do
they not clearly establish the truth that God is
' Valesius and Hein., in his first edition, and Bag. read this
transposed thus, "... severe damage to the state, and an effusion
of blood, which, if shed," etc. But I'al. suggests, and Heinichen
adopts in his second edition, that the whole sentence should be
transposed as above.
* [" He means Maxentius, as appears from what follows. How
Diocletian's army came under the command of Maxentius, it is
not difficult to understand. After Diocletian's abdication, Galerius
Maximian took the command of his forces, giving part to Severus
CsEsar for the defence of Italy. Shortly afterwards, Maxentius
having usurped the Imperial power at Rome, Galerius sent Severus
against him with his forces. Maxentius, however, fraudulently and
by promises corrupted and drew to his own side Severus's army.
After this, Galerius, having marched against Maxentius with a more
numerous force, was himself in like manner deserted by his troops.
Thus the army of Diocletian came under the power of Maxentius"
(Valesius ad loc.) . — Bag.^
the cause of the exploits I have performed?
Assuredly they do : for it belongs to God to do
whatever is best, and to man, to perform the
commands of God. I believe, indeed, the best
and noblest course of action is, when, before an
attempt is made, we provide as f;ir as possible
for a secure result : and surely all men know that
the holy service in which these hands have been
employed has originated in pure and genuine
faith towards God ; that whatever has been done
for the common welfare has been effected by
active exertion combined with supplication and
prayer ; the consequence of which has been
as great an amount of individual and public
benefit as each could venture to hope for him-
self and those he holds most dear. They have
witnessed battles, and have been spectators of
a war in which the providence of God has granted
victory to this people : ^ they have seen how he
has favored and seconded our prayers. For
righteous prayer is a thing invincible ; and no
one fails to attain his object who addresses
holy supplication to God : nor is a refusal possi-
ble, except in the case of wavering faith ; ^ for
God is ever favorable, ever ready to approve of
human virtue. While, therefore, it is natural for
man occasionally to err, yet God is not the cause
of human error. Hence it becomes all pious
persons to render thanks to the Saviour of all,
first for our own individual security, and then
for the happy posture of public affairs : at the
same time intreating the favor of Christ with
holy prayers and constant supplications, that he
would continue to us our present blessings. For
he is the invincible ally and protector of the
righteous : he is the supreme judge of all things,
the prince of immortality, the Giver of everlast-
ing life.
1 i.e. the Roman. So I'al. and Hein., but X'al. thinks it may
perhaps rather be " to my army."
2 Better, literally, " slackening faith." There is somewhat of
loss from the primitive and real conception of faith in the fixing of
the word " wavering " as the conventional expression for weak.
Faith is the steadfast current of personality towards an object, and
poverty of faith is more often the abatement or slackening of that
steady, insistent activity than the wavering of doubt. There is more
unbelief than disbelief.
THE ORATION
OF
EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI,
IN PRAISE OF
THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE.
PRONOUNCED ON THE THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF HIS REIGN.
1 Prologue to the Oration}
I COME not forward prepared with a fictitious
narrative, nor with elegance of language to capti-
vate the ear, desiring to charm my hearers, as it
were, with a siren's voice ; nor shall I present
the draught of pleasure in cups of gold deco-
rated with lovely flowers (I mean the graces of
style) to those who are pleased with such things.
Rather would I follow the precepts of the wise,
and admonish all to avoid and turn aside from
the beaten road, and keep themselves from
2 contact with the vulgar crowd. I come,
then, prepared to celebrate our emperor's
praises in a newer strain ; and, though the
number be infinite of those who desire to be
my companions in my present task, I am re-
solved to shun the common track of men,- and
to pursue that untrodden path which it is unlawful
to enter on with unwashed feet. Let those who
admire a vulgar style, abounding in puerile sub-
tleties, and who court a pleasing and popular
muse, essay, since pleasure is the object they
have in view, to charm the ears of men by a
narrative of merely human merits. Those, how-
ever, who are initiated into the universal science,^
and have attained to Divine as well as human
* The conventional heading has been retained. Literally it is
" Tricennial oration of Eusebius, addressed to the Emperor Constan-
tine. Prologue to the praises addressed to Constantine."
The translation of this oration shows, even more than that of the
Life or Constantine's Oration., a sympathy on the part of the trans-
lator with the florid style of Eusebius, and, trying as the style itself
is, the success of Bag. in presenting the spirit of the original with.
Ion the whole, very considerable accuracy of rendering has been a
constant matter of surprise during the effort to revise.
- Cf. Hom. //. 6. 202, tr. Bryant, 6. 263-4, " shunning every
haunt of human-kind."
3 Eusebius seems to use this phrase much as the modern phrases
" The final philosophy," " The science of sciences," " The queen of
sciences," when applied to theology.
I
knowledge, and account the choice of the latter
as the real excellence, will prefer those virtues
of the emperor which Heaven itself approves,
and his pious actions, to his merely human
accomplishments ; and will leave to inferior en-
comiasts the task of celebrating his lesser
merits. For since our emperor is gifted as 3
well with that sacred wisdom which has im-
mediate reference to God, as with the knowledge
which concerns the interests of men ; let those
who are competent to such a task describe his
secular acquirements, great and transcendent as
they are, and fraught with advantage to man-
kind (for all that characterizes the emperor is
great and noble), yet still inferior to his diviner
qualities, to those who stand without the
sacred precincts. Let those, however, who 4
are within the sanctuary, and have access to
its inmost and untrodden recesses, close the
doors against every profane ear, and unfold, as
it were, the secret mysteries of our emperor's
character to the initiated alone. And let those
who have purified their ears in the streams of
piety, and raised their thoughts on the soaring
wing of the mind itself, join the company which
surrounds the Sovereign Lord of all, and
learn in silence the divine mysteries. Mean- 5
while let the sacred oracles, given, not by
the spirit of divination (or rather let me say of
madness and folly), but by the inspiration of
Divine truth,* be our instructors in these myste-
ries ; speaking to us of sovereignty, generally :
of him who is the Supreme Sovereign of all, and
the heavenly array which surrounds the Lord of
all ; of that exemplar of imperial power which
1 " Divine light."
582
CONSTANTINE.
is before us, and that counterfeit coin : and,
lastly, of the consequences which result from
both. With these oracles, then, to initiate us
in the knowledge of the sacred rites, let us
essay, as follows, the commencement of our
divine mysteries.
CHAPTER I.
The Oration.
1 To-day i^ the festival of our great em-
peror : and we his children rejoice therein,
feeling the inspiration of our sacred theme. He
who presides over our solemnity is the Great
Sovereign himself; he, I mean, who is truly
great ; of whom I affirm (nor will the sovereign
who hears me be offended, but will rather ap-
prove of this ascription of praise to God), that
HE is above and iDcyond all created things, the
Highest, the Greatest, the most Mighty One;
whose throne is the arch of heaven, and the
earth the footstool of his feet.^ His being none
can worthily comprehend; and the ineffable
splendor of the glory which surrounds him
repels the gaze of every eye from his
2 Divine majesty. His ministers are the heav-
enly hosts ; his armies the supernal powers,
who own allegiance to him as their Master,
Lord, and King. The countless multitudes of
angels, the companies of archangels, the chorus
of holy spirits, draw from and reflect his radi-
ance as from the fountains of everlasting light.
Yea, every light, and specially those divine and
incorporeal intelligences whose place is beyond
the heavenly sphere, celebrate this august Sov-
ereign with lofty and sacred strains of praise.
The vast expanse of heaven, like an azure veil,
is interposed between those without, and those
who inhabit his royal mansions : while round
this expanse the sun and moon, with the rest
of the heavenly luminaries (Hkc torch-bearers
around the entrance of the imperial palace),
perform, in honor of their sovereign, their ap-
pointed courses ; holding forth, at the word of
his command, an ever-burning light to those
whose lot is cast in the darker regions with-
3 out the pale of heaven. And surely when
I remember that our own victorious em-
peror renders praises to this Mighty Sovereign,
I do well to follow him, knowing as I do that to
him alone we owe that imperial power under
which we live. The ]mous Caesars, instructed
by their father's wisdom, acknowledge him as
the source of every blessing : the soldiery, the
entire body of the people, both in the country
and in the cities of the empire, with the gov-
ernors of the several provinces, assembling to-
gether in accordance with the precept of their
great Saviour and Teacher, worship him. In
short, the whole family of mankind, of every na-
tion, tribe, and tongue, both collectively and sev-
erally, however diverse their opinions on other
subjects, are unanimous in this one confession ;
and, in obedience to the reason implanted in
them, and the spontaneous and uninstructed im-
pulse of their own minds, unite in callmg on
the One and only God.- Nay, does not the 4
universal frame of earth acknowledge him
her Lord, and declare, by the vegetable and
animal life which she produces, her subjection
to the will of a superior Power? The rivers,
flowing with abundant stream, and the perennial
fountains, springing from hidden and exhaust-
less depths, ascribe to him the cause of their
marvellous source. The mighty waters of the
sea, enclosed in chambers of unfathomable
depth, and the swelling surges, which lift them-
selves on high, and menace as it were the earth
itself, shrink back when they approach the
shore, checked by the power of his Divine law.
l^he duly measured fall of winter's rain, the
rolling thunder, the lightning's flash, the eddy-
ing currents of the winds, and the airy courses
of the clouds, all reveal his presence to
those to whom his Person is invisible. The 5
all-radiant sun, who holds his constant ca-
reer through the lapse of ages, owns him Lord
alone, and obedient to his will, dares not de-
part from his appointed path. The inferior
splendor of the moon, alternately diminished
and increased at stated periods, is subject to
his Divine command. The beauteous mechan-
ism of the heavens, glittering with the hosts of
stars, moving in harmonious order, and pre-
serving the measure of each several orbit, pro-
claims him the giver of all light : yea, all the
heavenly luminaries, maintaining at his will and
word a grand and perfect unity of motion, pur-
sue the track of their ethereal career, and com-
plete in the lapse of revolving ages their distant
course. The alternate recurrence of day and
night, the changing seasons, the order and j^ro-
portion of the universe, all declare the manifold
wisdom of [his boundless power]. To him
the unseen agencies which hold their course'
throughout the expanse of space, render the
due tribute of praise. To him this terrestrial
globe itself, to him the heavens above, and the
choirs beyond the vault of heaven, give honor
as to their mighty Sovereign : the angelic hosts
greet him with ineffable songs of Praise; and
the spirits which draw their being from incor-
poreal light, adore him as their Creator. The
' Paraphrased from Is. Ixvi. j.
- [VVe must be content here (and probably in other passages of
this Oration) to tolerate as rhetorical embellishment that which,
regarded literally, is in every sense palpably untrue. — /irtf- 1 The
intention of the passage is probably like that of those who say now
that there is no nation where, in some form, God is not worshiped.
THE ORATION OI" ICUSEIilUS.
583
everlasting ages which were before this heaven
and earth, with other periods beside them, in-
finite, and antecedent to all visible creation,
acknowledge him the sole and supreme
6 Sovereign and Lord. Lastly, he who is in
all, before, and after all,'^ his only begotten,
]ire-existent Word, the great High Priest of the
mighty God, elder than all time and every age,
devoted to his Father's glory, first and alone
makes intercession with him for the salvation
of mankind.* Supreme and pre-eminent Ruler
of the universe, he shares the glory of his
Father's kingdom : for he is that Light, which,
transcendent above the universe, encircles the
Father's Person, interposing and dividing be-
tween the eternal and uncreated Essence and
all derived existence : that Light which, stream-
ing from on high, proceeds from that Deity who
knows not origin or end, and illumines the
super-celestial regions, and all that heaven itself
contains, with the radiance of wisdom bright
beyond the splendor of the sun. This is he
who holds a supreme dominion over this whole
world,^ who is over and in all things, and per-
vades all things ^ visible and invisible ; the
^^^ord of God. From whom and by whom our
divinely favored emperor, receiving, as it were,
a transcript of the Divine sovereignty, directs, in
imitation of (jod himself, the administration of
this world's affairs.
CHAPTER n.
1 This only begotten Word of God reigns,
from ages which had no beginning, to infi-
nite and endless ages, the partner of his Father's
kingdom. And [our emperor] ever beloved by
him, who derives the source of imperial authority
from above, and is strong in the power of his
sacred title,^ has controlled the empire of
2 the world for a long period of years. Again,
that Preserver of the universe orders these
heavens and earth, and the celestial kingdom,
consistently with his Father's will. Even so our
emperor whom he loves, by bringing those whom
he rules on earth to the only begotten Word and
Saviour renders them fit subjects of his
3 kingdom. And as he who is the common
Saviour of mankind, by his invisible and
Divine power as the good shepherd, drives far
3 [Referring possibly to Rev. i. 8. "I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the ending saith the Lord, which is, and which
was, and which is to come, the Almighty." — Ba^.] Or, possibly,
refers to Eph. iv. 6, as it seems to be simply some verbal suggestion.
■* [The Arianism implied in this passage, if referred to the Word
as God, disappears if we regard it as spoken of Christ as the Word
manifested in human nature. See the note of Valesius ad loc. —
Bag^.] " Universe.
'' This is directly from Eph. iv. 6: " Who is over all and through
all and in all." It is thus directly referred to the Father, and on the
basis of the above note of Bnc;'- seems to convict of Arianism, but in
reality the conception of a pre-existing Word is distinctly orthodox.
1 [It is difficult to know precisely what is meant here. Possibly
the name of Christian. — Ba^.]
away from his flock, like savage beasts, those
apostate spirits which once flew through the
airy tracts above this earth, and fastened on the
souls of men ; ■ so this his friend, graced by his
heavenly favor with victory over all his foes,
subdues and chastens the open adversaries of
the truth in accordance with the usages of
war. He who is the pre-cxistent Word, the 4
Preserver of all things, imi)arts to his disci-
ples the seeds of true wisdom and salvation, and
at once enlightens and gives them understanding
in the knowledge of his Father's kingdom. Our
emperor, his friend, acting as interpreter to
the Word of God, aims at recalling the whole
human race to the knowledge of God ; proclaim-
ing clearly in the ears of all, and declaring with
powerful voice the laws of truth and godli-
ness to all who dwell on the earth. Once 5
more, the universal Saviour opens the
heavenly gates of his Father's kingdom to those
whose course is thitherward from this world.
Our emperor, emulous of his Divine example,
having purged his earthly dominion from every
stain of impious error, invites each holy and
pious worshiper within his imperial mansions,
earnestly desiring to save with all its crew that
mighty vessel of v/hich he is the appointed pilot.
And he alone of all who have wielded the im-
perial power of Rome, being honored by the
Supreme Sovereign with a reign of three decen-
nial periods, now celebrates this festival, not, as
his ancestors might have done, in honor of infer-
nal demons, or the apparitions of seducing spir-
its, or of the fraud and deceitful arts of impious
men ; but as an act of thanksgiving to him by
whom he has thus been honored, and in ac-
knowledgment of the blessings he has received
at his hands. He does not, in imitation of
ancient usage, defile his imperial mansions Avith
blood and gore, nor propitiate the infernal dei-
ties with fire and smoke, and sacrificial offer-
ings ; but dedicates to the universal Sovereign a
pleasant and acceptable sacrifice, even his own
imperial soul, and a mind truly fitted for
the service of God. For this sacrifice alone 6
is grateful to him : and this sacrifice our
emperor has learned, with purified mind and
thoughts, to present as an offering without the
intervention of fire and blood, while his own
piety, strengthened by the truthful doctrines
with which his soul is stored, he sets forth in
magnificent language the praises of God, and
- This is an allusion to what was afterwards known as Vampire-
ism, — a belief of unknown antiquity, and especially prevalent in
various forms in the East. Rydberg (A/a^ic of the Middle Ages, p.
207) describes the mediajval form thus: " The vampires, accotding
to the belief of the Middle Ages, are disembodied souls which clothe
themselves again in their buried bodies, steal at night into houses,
and suck from the nipple of the sleeping all their blood." (Cf. Perly,
d. myst. Ersch. i ri872l, 383. 91; Gorres' Chr. myst. Vol. 3, etc.)
Similar in nature was that notion of the spirits who sucked away
the breath of sleeping persons, which has left its trace in the modern
superstition that cats suck away the breath of sleeping children.
584
CONSTANTINE.
imitates his Divine philanthropy by his own im-
perial acts. Wholly devoted to him, he dedi-
cates himself as a noble offering, a first-fruit of
that world, the government of which is intrusted
to his charge. This first and greatest sacrifice
our emperor first dedicates to Ood ; and then,
as a faithful shepherd, he offers, not " famous
hecatombs of firstling lambs," but the souls of
that flock which is the object of his care, those
rational beings whom he leads to the knowledge
and pious worship of God.
CHAPTER III.
1 And gladly does he accept and welcome
this sacrifice, and commend the presenter
of so august and noble an off'ering, by protract-
ing his reign to a lengthened period of years,
giving larger proofs of his beneficence in pro-
portion to the emperor's holy services to him-
self. Accordingly he permits him to celebrate
each successive festival during great and general
prosperity throughout the empire, advancing one
of his sons, at the recurrence of each decennial
period, to a share of his own imperial
2 power.i jj^g eldest, who bears his father's
name, he received as his partner in the em-
pire about the close of the first decade of his
reign : the second, next in point of age, at the
second ; and the third in like manner at the
third decennial period, the occasion of this our
present festival. And now that the fourth period
has commenced, and the time of his reign is
still further prolonged, he desires to extend his
imperial authority by calling still more of his
kindred to partake his power ; and, by the ap-
pointment of the Caesars,- fulfills the predictions
of the holy prophets, according to what they
uttered ages before: " i\nd the saints of the
3 Most High shall take the kingdom."^' And
thus the Almighty Sovereign himself accords
an increase both of years and of children to our
most pious emperor, and rentiers his sway over
the nations of the world still fresh and flourishing,
as though it were even now springing up in its
earliest vigor. He it is who appoints him this
present festival, in that he has made him victo-
rious over every enemy that disturbed his peace :
he it is who displays him as an example of
4 true godliness to the human race. And
thus our emperor, like the radiant sun, illu-
minates the most distant subjects of his empire
' A general statement, such as Euscbius is fond of making.
The elevation of his sons was about these times, but not on them
exactly. Compare Prolegomena, Life.
2 f Dalmatius and Hanniballianus. — Bag.^
3 [Dan. vii. i8. It is surely needless to remark on so singular
and vicious an application of Scripture as this, further than thnt it
is either a culp.ible rhetorical flourish, or else an indication of a
lamentable defect of spiritual intclliueuce in the most learned writer
of the fourth century. — Bae;.^ " Rut the saints of the Most High
shall receive the kingdom." — A'fz/«f</ Version.
through the presence of the Caesars, as with the
far piercing rays of his own brightness. To us
who occupy the eastern regions he has given a
son worthy of himself;^ a second and a third
respectively to other departments of his empire,
to be, as it were, briUiant reflectors of the light
which proceeds from himself. Once more, hav-
ing harnessed, as it were, under the self-same
yoke the four most noble Caesars ^ as horses in
the imperial chariot, he sits on high and directs
their course by the reins of holy harmony and con-
cord ; and, himself every where present, and ob-
servant of every event, thus traverses every
region of the world. Lastly, invested as he 5
is with a semblance of heavenly sovereignty,
he directs his gaze above, and frames his earthly
government according to the pattern of that
Divine original, feeling strength in its conformity
to the monarchy of God. And this conformity
is granted by the universal Sovereign to man
alone of the creatures of this earth : for he only
is the author of sovereign power, who decrees
that all should be subject to the rule of one.
And surely monarchy far transcends every 6
other constitution and form of government :
for that democratic equality of power, which is
its opposite, may rather be described as anarchy
and disorder. Hence there is one God, and not
two, or three, or more : for to assert a plurality
of gods is plainly to deny the being of God at
all. There is one Sovereign \ and his Word and
royal Law is one : a Law not expressed in sylla-
bles and words, not written or engraved on tab-
lets, and therefore subject to the ravages of time ;
but the living and self-subsisting Word, who him-
self is God, and who administers his Father's
kingdom on behalf of all who are after him
and subject to his power. His attendants are 7
the heavenly hosts ; the myriads of God's
angelic ministers ; the super-terrestrial armies,
of unnumbered multitude ; and those unseen
sjiirits within heaven itself, whose agency is em-
ployed in regulating the order of this world.
Ruler and chief of all these is the royal Word,
acting as Regent of the Supreme Sovereign.
To him the names of Captain, and great High
Triest, Prophet of the Father, Angel of mighty
counsel, lirightness of the Father's light, Only
begotten Son, with a thousand other titles, are
ascribed in the oracles of the sacred writers.
And the leather, having constituted him the liv-
ing Word, and Law, and \\'isdom, the fullness of
all blessing, has presented this best and greatest
gift to all who arc the subjects of his sov-
ereignty. And he himself, who pervades 8
all things, and is every where present, un-
, folding his Father's bounties to all with unspar-
ing hand, has accorded a specimen of his sov-
^ [Constantius Caisar. — Bag.^
^ Compare Prolegomena, under Life.
THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
585
ercign power even to his rational creatures of
this earth, in that he has provided the mind of
man, who is formed after liis own image, with
Divine faculties, whence it is capable of other
virtues also, which How from the same heavenly
source. For he only is wise, who is the only
God : he only is essentially good : he only is of
mighty power, the Parent of justice, the Father
of reason and wisdom, the Fountain of light
and life, the Dispenser of truth and virtue : in
a word, the Author of empire itself, and of all
dominion and power.
CHAPTER IV.
1 But whence has man this knowledge, and
who has ministered these truths to mortal
ears? Or whence has a tongue of flesh the
power to speak of things so utterly distinct from
fleshly or material substance ? Who has gazed
on the invisible King, and beheld these perfec-
tions in him? The bodily sense may compre-
hend elements and their combinations, of a
nature kindred to its own : but no one yet
has boasted to have scanned with corporeal eye
that unseen kingdom which governs all things ;
nor has mortal nature yet discerned the beauty
of perfect wisdom. Who has beheld the face
of righteousness through the medium of flesh?
And whence came the idea of legitimate sover-
eignty and imperial power to man? 'Whence
the thought of absolute dominion to a being
composed of flesh and blood? Who declared
those ideas which are invisible and undefined,
and that incorporeal essence which has no ex-
ternal form, to the mortals of this earth?
2 Surely there was but one interpreter of
these things ; the all-pervading Word of
God.^ For he is the author of that rational and
intelligent being which exists in man ; and, being
himself one with his Father's Divine nature, he
sheds upon his offspring the out-flowings of his
Father's bounty. Hence the natural and un-
taught powers of thought, which all men, Greeks
or Barbarians, alike possess : hence the percep-
tion of reason and wisdom, the seeds of integ-
rity and righteousness, the understanding of the
arts of life, the knowledge of virtue, the precious
name of wisdom, and the noble love of philo-
sophic learning. Hence the knowledge of all
that is great and good : hence apprehension of
God himself, and a life worthy of his worship :
hence the royal authority of man, and his invin-
cible lordship over the creatures of this
3 world. And when that Word, who is the
Parent of rational beings, had impressed a
character on the mind of man according to the
' " And no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and
who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will-
eth to reveal him." — Luke x. 22.
image and likeness of God,- and had made him
a royal creature, in that he gave him alone of
all earthly creatures capacity to rule and to obey
(as well as forethought and foreknowledge even
here, concerning the promised hope of his
heavenly kingdom, because of which he him-
self came, and, as the Parent of his children,
disdained not to hold converse with mortal
men) ; he continued to cherish the seeds which
himself had sown, and renewed his gracious
favors from above ; holding forth to all the
promise of sharing his heavenly kingdom. Ac-
cordingly he called men, and exhorted them to
be ready for their heavenward journey, and to
provide themselves with the garment which be-
came their calling. And by an indescribable
power he filled the world in every part with his
doctrine, expressing by the similitude of an
earthly kingdom that heavenly one to which he
earnestly invites all mankind, and presents it to
them as a worthy object of their hope.
CHAPTER V.
And in this hope our divinely- favored 1
emperor partakes even in this present life,
gifted as he is by God with native virtues, and
having received into his soul the out-flowings of
his favor. His reason he derives from the great
Source of all reason : he is wise, and good, and
just, as having fellowship with perfect Wisdom,
Goodness, and Righteousness : virtuous, as fol-
lowing the pattern of perfect virtue : valiant,
as partaking of heavenly strength. And 2
truly may he deserve the imperial title, who
has formed his soul to royal virtues, according
to the standard of that celestial kingdom. But
he who is a stranger to these blessings, who de-
nies the Sovereign of the universe, and owns no
allegiance to the heavenly Father of spirits ; who
invests not himself with the virtues which become
an emperor, but overlays his soul with moral de-
formity and baseness ; who for royal clemency
substitutes the fury of a savage beast ; for a
generous temper, the incurable venom of mali-
cious wickedness ; for prudence, folly ; for rea-
son and wisdom, that recklessness which is the
most odious of all vices, for from it, as from a
spring of bitterness, proceed the most pernicious
fruits ; such as inveterate profligacy of life, covet-
ousness, murder, impiety and defiance of God ;
surely one abandoned to such vices as these, how-
ever he may be deemed powerful through des-
potic violence, has no true title to the name
of Emperor. For how should he whose soul 3
is impressed with a thousand absurd images of
^ Eusebius, in making it the Word who impresses the image of
God on men, shows good philosophy and good theology.
586
CONSTANTINE.
false deities/ be able to exhibit a counterpart
of the true and heavenly sovereignty ? Or how
can he be absolute lord of others, who has sub-
jected himself to the dominion of a thousand
cruel masters ? a slave of low delights and un-
governed lust, a slave of wrongfully-extorted
wealth, of rage and passion, as well as of
cowardice and terror ; a slave of ruthless
4 demons, and soul-destroying spirits? Let,
then, our emperor, on the testimony of
truth itself, be declared alone worthy of the
title ; who is dear to the Supreme Sovereign
himself; who alone is free, nay, who is truly
lord : above the thirst of wealth, superior to
sexual desire ; victorious even over natural
pleasures ; controlling, not controlled by, anger
and passion.^ He is indeed an emperor, and
bears a title corresponding to his deeds ; a
Victor in truth, who has gained the victory
over those passions which overmaster the rest
of men : whose character is formed after the
Divine original ^ of the Supreme Sovereign, and
whose mind reflects, as in a mirror, the radiance
of his virtues. Hence is our emperor perfect
in discretion, in goodness, in justice, in courage,
in piety, in devotion to God : he truly and only
is a philosopher, since he knows himself, and
is fully aware that supplies of every blessing are
showered on him from a source quite external
to himself, even from heaven itself. Declaring
the august title of supreme authority by the
splendor of his vesture, he alone worthily wears
that imperial purple which so well becomes
5 him. He is indeed an emperor, who calls
on and implores in prayer the favor of his
heavenly Father night and day, and whose ardent
' There seems to be a clear hint of Philonism here, or Philonism
as developed by the Neo-Platonists and the Christian Theologians.
The history of the thought seems to begin in the Platonic ideas.
These self-existing forms which impress themselves on the soul
naturally become personalities to which the soul submits, and
whose images are impressed on the sold. These personalized ideas
are in the thought of Philo the thoughts or ideas of God, " powers"
who do his will, like the Valkyr of the Northern mythology, — the
personified thoughts or will of Odin. These objective ideas in or-
ganized whole were the Word.
The objectivity of ideas, placed in relation with " mind reading,"
" thought transference," and the like, and with the modern conccj)-
tions of the conservation of energy and transmission of force \)y
vibrations, give an interesting suggestion of a material basis for the
conception. If thought is accompanied by vibration of brain mole-
cules, it is of course ijuite conceivable that that vibration be projected
through any medium which can transmit vibration, whether the
nerves of another person or the air. A person of supreme energy of
will would make these vibrations more intense, and an Infinite per-
sonality would make tangible even perhaps to the point of that re-
sistance which we call matter. The conception of one great central
Personality issuing an org.anized related system of thoughts in vari-
ous stages of enibodiment, in one massive, constant forth-streaming
of will, is most interesting. According to it, all will forms of the in-
dividual are true as thcv arc in harmony with these norms. Where,
however, the lesser wills project incongruous will forms, they are in
conflict with the greater. According to it, the human soid is beaten
upon by all ideas which have ever been projected, either in indi-
vidual or in some combined total of fnrce, and is formed according
to what it submits itself to, whether to the lesser and mal-organized
or to the Great Norm.
2 Compare Prolegomena, C/trt>-rtf/^r. This peculiar self-control,
it is to be remembered, was characteristic also of his father, and in a
measure the product of the Neo-Platonic philosophy.
^ Literally, the "archetypal idea," — the same phrase as that
used by Philo, i. 4 (ed. Lips., 1828, I. p. 7); i.e. that incorporeal
model or image of God on which the corporeal world was formed.
desires are fixed on his celestial kingdom.
For
he knows that present things, subject as they
are to decay and death, flowing on and disap-
pearing like a river's stream, are not worthy to
be compared with him who is sovereign of all ;
therefore it is that he longs for the incorrupti-
ble and incorporeal kingdom of God. .Vnd this
kingdom he trusts he shall obtain, elevating his
mind as he does in sublimity of thought abo\e
the vault of heaven, and filled with inexpressible
longing for the glories which shine there, in
comparison with which he deems the precious
things of this present world but darkness. For
he sees earthly sovereignty to be but a petty
and fleeting dominion over a mortal and tem-
porary life, and rates it not much higher than
the goatherd's, or shepherd's, or herdsman's
power : nay, as more burdensome than theirs,
and exercised over more stubborn subjects.
The acclamations of the people, and the voice
of flattery, he reckons rather troublesome than
pleasing, because of the steady constancy of
his character, and genuine discipline of his
mind. Again, when he beholds the mill- 6
tary service of his subjects, the vast array
of his armies, the multitudes of horse and foot,
entirely devoted to his command, he feels no
astonishment, no pride at the possession of such
mighty power ; but turns his thoughts inward
on himself, and recognizes the same common
nature there. He smiles at his vesture, em-
broidered with gold and flowers, and at the
imperial purple and diadem itself, when he sees
the multitude gaze in wonder, like children at
a bugbear, on the splendid spectacle.* Himself
superior to such feelings, he clothes his soul
with the knowledge of God, that vesture, the
broidery of which is temperance, righteous-
ness, piety, and all other virtues ; a vesture
such as truly becomes a sovereign. The 7
wealth which others so much desire, as
gold, silver, or precious gems, he regards to be,
as they really are, in themselves mere stones
and worthless matter, of no avail to preserve or
defend from evil. For what power have these
things to free from disease, or repel the ap-
proach of death? And knowing as he does
this truth by personal experience in the use of
these things, he regards the splendid attire of
his subjects with calm indifference, and smiles
at the childishness of those to whom they prove
attractive. Lastly, he abstains from all excess
in food and wine, and leaves superfluous dain-
ties to gluttons, judging that such indulgences,
however suitable to others, are not so to him, and
deeply convinced of their pernicious tendency,
and their effect in darkening the intellectual
powers of the soul. For all these reasons, 8
* This may be true; but compare Prolegomena, Character, for
liis practice, at least.
THE ORATION OF ICUSKHIUS.
587
our divinely taught and noble-minded em-
peror, aspiring to higher objects than this life
affords, calls upon his heavenly Father as one
who longs for his kingdom ; exhibits a pious
spirit in each action of his life ; and finally, as
a wise and good instructor, imparts to his sub-
jects the knowledge of him who is the Sovereign
Lord of all.
CHAPTER VI.
1 And God himself, as an earnest of future
reward, assigns to him now as it were tri-
cennial crowns ^ composed of prosperous periods
of time ; and now, after the revolution of three
circles of ten years, he grants permission to
all mankind to celebrate this general, nay
2 rather, this universal festival. And while
those on earth thus rejoice, crowned as it
Avere with the flowers of divine knowledge,
surely, we may not unduly suppose that the
heavenly choirs, attracted by a natural sympa-
thy, unite their joy with the joy of those on
earth : nay, that the Supreme Sovereign himself,
as a gracious father, delights in the worship of
duteous children, and for this reason is pleased
to honor the author and cause of their obedi-
ence through a lengthened period of time ; and,
far from limiting his reign to three decennial cir-
cles of years, he extends it to the rem.otest
3 period, even to far distant eternity. Now
eternity - in its whole extent is beyond the
power of decline or death : its beginning and
extent alike incapable of being scanned by mor-
tal thoughts. Nor will it suffer its central point
to be perceived, nor that which is termed its
present duration to be grasped by the inquiring
mind. Far less, then, the future, or the past :
for the one is not, but is already gone ; while
the future has not yet arrived, and therefore is
not. As regards what is termed the present
time, it vanishes even as we think or speak,
more swiftly than the word itself is uttered.
Nor is it possible in any sense to apprehend this
time as present ; for we must either expect the
future, or contemplate the past ; the present
slips from us, and is gone, even in the act of
thought. Eternity, then, in its whole extent,
resists and refuses subjection to mortal rea-
4 son. But it does not refuse to acknowledge
its own Sovereign and Lord,^ and bears him
as it were mounted on itself, rejoicing in the
1 [Alluding (says Valesius) to the crowns of gold which the
people of the several provinces were accustomed to present to the
Roman emperors on such occasions as the present. — ^a^.] In his
prologue to the Life, Eusebius calls this very oration a weaving of
tricennial crowns (or garlands). These crowns had their histori-
cal origin in the triumphal crowns imder the Roman system. Cf.
Rich, in Smith, Diet. Gr. and Rom. Ant. p. 361.
- [It is perhaps difficult to find a better word to express the
original aiojv. — Bag:^
•' Compare i Tim. i. 17 (marg-.), " King of the ages" (" seons,"
or according to this translation " eternity ").
fair trappings which he bestows.' And he him-
self, not binding it, as the poet imagined, with
a golden chain,^ but as it were controlling its
movements by the reins of ineffable wisdom, has
adjusted its months and seasons, its times and
years, and the alterations of day and night, with
l)crfect harmony, and has thus attached to it
limits and measures of various kinds. For eter-
nity, being in its nature direct, and stretching
onward into infinity, and receiving its name,
eternity, as having an everlasting existence,^
and being similar in all its parts, or rather hav-
ing no division or distance, progresses only in a
line of direct extension. But God, who has dis-
tributed it by intermediate sections, and has
divided it, like a far extended line, in many
points, has included in it a vast number of por-
tions ; and though it is in its nature one, and
resembles unity itself, he has attached to it a
multiplicity of numbers, and has given it, though
formless in itself, an endless variety of forms
For first of all he framed in it formless mat- 5
ter, as a substance capable of receiving all
forms. He next, by the power of the number
two, imparted quality to matter, and gave beauty
to that which before was void of all grace.
Again, by means of the number three, he framed
a body compounded of matter and form, and
presenting the three dimensions of breadth, and
length, and depth. Then, from the doubling of
the number two, he devised the quaternion of
the elements, earth, water, air, and fire, and or-
dained them to be everlasting sources for the
supply of this universe. Again, the number four
produces the number ten. For the aggregate
of one, and two, and three, and four, is ten,'^
And three multiplied with ten discovers the pe-
riod of a month : and twelve successive months
complete the course of the sun. Hence the
revolutions of years, and changes of the seasons,
which give grace, like variety of color in paint-
ing, to that eternity which before was formless
and devoid of beauty, for the refreshment and
delight of those whose lot it is to traverse
therein the course of life. For as the ground 6
is defined by stated distances for those who
run in hope of obtaining tlie prize ; and as the
road of those who travel on a distant journey is
marked by resting-places and measured intervals,
that the traveler's courage may not fail at the
interminable prospect ; even so the Sovereign
of the universe, controlling eternity itself within
^ [Days, months, years, seasons, &c., are here intended. Vale-
sius, ad loc. — ^^S'-]
5 Hom. //. 8, ig.
•^ [Aiajj', (otTTrep det ujr. — Bai^.]
' From what source Eusebius draws this particular application of
the Pythagorean principle is uncertain. This conception of the deri-
vation of ten from four is found in Philo, de Mund. Opif. ch. 15,
and indeed it is said {Ueber^ueg) that with the earliest Pythagoreans
four and ten were the especially significant numbers in creation.
This mixture of Neo-Pythagoreanism with Platonism and Philonism
was characteristic of the time.
588
CONSTANTINE.
the restraining power of his own wisdom, directs
and turns its course as he judges best. The
same God, I say, who thus clothes the once un-
defined eternity as with fair colors and bloom-
ing flowers, gladdens the day with the solar
rays ; and, while he overspreads the night with
a covering of darkness, yet causes the glittering
stars, as golden spangles, to shine therein. It
is he who lights up the brilliancy of the morning
star, the changing splendor of the moon, and
the glorious companies of the starry host, and
has arrayed the expanse of heaven, like some
vast mantle, in colors of varied beauty. Again,
having created the lofty and profound expanse
of air, and caused the world in its length and
breadth to feel its cooling influence, he decreed
that the air itself should be graced with birds of
every kind, and left open this vast ocean of space
to be traversed by every creature, visible or
invisible, whose course is through the tracts of
heaven. In the midst of this atmosphere he
poised the earth, as it were its center, and en-
compassed it with the ocean as with a beau-
7 tiful azure vesture. Having ordained this
earth to be at once the home, the nurse,
and the mother of all the creatures it contains,
and watered it both with rain and water-springs,
he caused it to abound in plants and flowers of
every species, for the enjoyment of life. And
when he had formed man in his own likeness,
the noblest of earthly creatures, and dearest to
himself, a creature gifted with intellect and
knowledge, the child of reason and wisdom,
he gave him dominion over all other animals
wliirh move and live upon the earth. For man
was in truth of all earthly creatures the dearest
to God : man, I say, to whom, as an indulgent
Father, he has subjected the brute creation ; for
whom he has made the ocean navigable, and
crowned the earth with a profusion of plants of
every kind ; to whom he has granted reasoning
f^iculties for acquiring all science ; under whose
control he has placed even the creatures of the
deep, and the winged inhabitants of the air ; to
whom he has permitted the contemplation of
celestial objects, and revealed the course and
changes of the sun and moon, and the periods
of the planets and fixed stars. In short, to man
alone of earthly beings has he given command-
ment to acknowledge him as his heavenly Father,
and to celebrate his praises as the Supreme
8 Sovereign of eternity itself. But the un-
changeable course of eternity the Creator
has limited by the four seasons of the year, ter-
minating the winter by the approach of spring,
and regulating as with an equal balance that
season which commences the annual period.
Having thus graced the eternal course of time
with the varied productions of spring, he added
the summer's heat ; and then granted as it were
a relief of toil by the interval of autumn : and
lastly, refreshing and cleansing the season by the
showers of winter, he brings it, rendered sleek
and glossy, like a noble steed, by these abun-
dant rains, once more to the gates of spring.
As soon, then, as the Supreme Sovereign 9
had thus connected his own eternity by
these cords of wisdom with the annual circle, he
committed it to the guidance of a mighty Gov-
ernor, even his only begotten Word, to whom,
as the Preserver of all creation, he yielded the
reins of universal power. And he, receiving
this inheritance as from a beneficent Father,
and uniting all things both above and beneath
the circumference of heaven in one harmonious
whole, directs their uniform course ; providing
with perfect justice whatever is expedient for
his rational creatures on the earth, appointing
its allotted hmits to human life, and granting to
all alike permission to anticipate even here the
commencement of a future existence. For he
has taught them that beyond this present world
there is a divine and blessed state of being,
reserved for those who have been supported here
by the hope of heavenly blessings ; and that
those who have lived a virtuous and godly life
will remove hence to a far better habitation ;
while he adjudges to those who have been guilty
and wicked here a place of punishment ac-
cording to their crimes. Again, as in the 10
distribution of prizes at the public games,
he proclaims various crowns to the victors, and
invests each with the rewards of different vir-
tues : but for our good emperor, who is clothed
in the very robe of piety, he declares that a
higher recompense of his toils is prepared ; and,
as a prelude to this recompense, permits us now
to assemble at this festival, which is composed
of perfect numbers, of decades thrice, and
triads ten times repeated. The first of 11
these, the triad, is the offspring of the unit,
while the unit is the mother of number itself, and
presides over all months, and seasons, and years,
and every period of time. It may, indeed, be
justly termed the origin, foundation, and principle
of all number, and derives its name from its abid-
ing character.* For, while every other number
is diminished or increased according to the sub-
traction or addition of others, the unit alone
continues fixed and steadfast, abstracted from
all multitude and the numbers which are formed
from it, and resembling that indivisible essence
which is distinct from all things beside, but by
virtue of participation in which the nature
of all things else subsists. For the unit is 12
the originator of every number, since all
* [Mova?, Trapa. to fievtiv (oi'OfiaffMf •''?• The analogies from
number in tliis chapter (which the reader will probably consitler
puerile enough) seem to be an imitation of some of the mystical
speculations of Plato. — Ba^.^
THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
589
multitude is made up by the composition and
addition of units ; nor is it possible without the
unit to conceive the existence of number at all.
But the unit itself is independent of multitude,
apart from and superior to all number ; form-
ing, indeed, and making all, but receiving
13 no increase from any. Kindred to this is
the triad ; equally indivisible and perfect,
the first of those sums which are formed of even
and uneven numbers. For the perfect number
two, receiving the addition of the unit, forms
the triad, the first perfect compound number.
And the triad, by explaining what equality is,
first taught men justice, having itself an equal
beginning, and middle, and end. And it is also
an image of the mysterious, most holy, and royal
Trinity, which, though itself without beginning
or origin, yet contains the germs, the reasons,
and causes of the existence of all created
14 things. Thus the power of the triad may
justly be regarded as the first cause of all
things. Again, the number ten, which contains
the end of all numbers, and terminates them in
itself, may truly be called a full and perfect
number, as comprehending every species and
every measure of numbers, proportions, con-
cords, and harmonies. For example, the units
by addition form and are terminated by the
number ten ; and, having this number as their
parent, and as it were the limit of their course,
they round this a^ the goal of their career.
15 Then they perform a second circuit, and
again a third, and a fourth, until the tenth,
and thus by ten decades they complete the hun-
dredth number. Returning thence to the first
starting point, they again proceed to the num-
ber ten, and having ten times completed the
hundredth number, again they recede, and j^er-
form round the same barriers their protracted
course, proceeding from themselves back to
themselves again, with revolving motion.
16 For the unit is the tenth of ten, and ten
units make up a decade, which is itself the
limit, the settled goal and boundary of units : it
is that which terminates the infinity of number ;
the term and end of units. Again, the triad
combined with the decade, and performing a
threefold circuit of tens, produces that most
natural number, thirty. For as the triad is in
respect to units, so is the number thirty in
17 respect to tens. It is also the constant
limit to the course of that luminary which
is second to the sun in brightness. For the
course of the moon from one conjunction with
the sun to the next, completes the period of a
month ; after which, receiving as it were a sec-
ond birth, it recommences a new light, and other
days, being adorned and honored with thirty
18 units, three decades, and ten triads. In the
same manner is the universal reign of our
victorious emperor distinguished by the giver of
all good, and now enters on a new si)here of
blessing, accomplishing, at present, this tricen-
nalian festival, but reaching forward beyond
this to far more distant intervals of time, and
cherishing the hope of future blessings in the
celestial kingdom ; where, not a single sun, but
infinite hosts of light surround the Almighty Sov-
ereign, each surpassing the splendor of the sun,
glorious and resplendent with rays derived
from the everlasting source of light. There 19
the soul enjoys its existence, surrounded by
fair and unfading blessings ; there is a life be-
yond the reach of sorrow ; there the enjoyment
of pure and holy pleasures, and a time of un-
measured and endless duration, extending into
illimitable space; not defined by intervals of
days and months, the revolutions of years, or
the recurrence of times and seasons, but com-
mensurate with a life which knows no end. And
this life needs not the light of the sun, nor the
lustre of the moon or the starry host, since it
has the great Luminary himself, even God the
Word, the only begotten Son of the Al-
mighty Sovereign. Hence it is that the 20
mystic and sacred oracles reveal him to be
the Sun of righteousness, and the Light which
far transcends all light. We beheve that he illu-
mines also the thrice-blessed powers of heaven
with the rays of righteousness, and the brightness
of wisdom, and that he receives truly pious souls,
not within the sphere of heaven alone, but into
his own bosom, and confirms indeed the
assurances which he himself has given. No 21
mortal eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor can
the mind in its vesture of flesh understand what
things are prepared for those who have been
here adorned with the graces of godliness ;
blessings which await thee too, most pious em-
peror, to whom alone since the world began has
the Almighty Sovereign of the universe granted
power to purify the course of human life : to
whom also he has revealed his own symbol of
salvation, whereby he overcame the power of
death, and triumphed over every enemy. And
this victorious trophy, the scourge of evil spirits,
thou hast arrayed against the errors of idol wor-
ship, and hast obtained the victory not only
over all thy impious and savage foes, but over
equally barbarous adversaries, the evil spirits
themselves.
CHAPTER VII.
For whereas we are composed of two 1
distinct natures, I mean of body and spirit,
of which the one is visible to all, the other
invisible, against both these natures two kinds
of barbarous and savage enemies, the one invis-
ibly, the other openly, are constantly arrayed.
590
CONSTANTINE.
The one oppose our bodies with bodily force :
the other with incorporeal assaults besiege
2 the naked soul itself. Again, the visible
barbarians, like the wild nomad tribes, no
better than savage beasts, assail the nations of
civilized men, ravage their country, and enslave
their cities, rushing on those who inhabit them
like ruthless wolves of the desert, and destroying
all who fall under their power. But those unseen
foes, more cruel far than barbarians, I mean the
soul-destroying demons whose course is through
the regions of the air, had succeeded, through
the snares of vile polytheism, in enslaving the
entire human race, insomuch that they no longer
recognized the true God, but wandered in the
mazes of atheistic error. For they procured, I
know not whence, gods who never anywhere
existed, and set him aside who is the only
and the true God, as though he were not.
3 Accordingly the generation of bodies was
esteemed by them a deity, and so the op-
posite principle to this, their dissolution and
destruction, was also deified. The first, as the
author of generative power, was honored with
rites under the name of Venus : ' the second,
as rich, and mighty in dominion over the human
race, received the names of Pluto, and Death.
For men in those ages, knowing no other than
naturally generated life, declared the cause and
origin of that life to be divine : and again, believ-
ing in no existence after death, they proclaimed
Death himself a universal conqueror and a
mighty god. Hence, unconscious of respon-
sibility, as destined to be annihilated by death,
they lived a life unworthy of the name, in the
practice of actions deserving a thousand deaths.
No thought of God could enter their minds, no
expectation of Divine judgment, no recollection
of, no reflection on, their spiritual existence :
acknowledging one dread superior. Death, and
persuaded that the dissolution of their bodies by
his power was final annihilation, they bestowed
on Death the title of a mighty, a wealthy god,
and hence the name of Pluto.^ Thus, then,
Death became to them a god ; nor only so, but
whatever else they accounted precious in com-
parison with death, whatever contributed to
4 the luxuries of life. Hence animal pleasure
became to them a god ; nutrition, and its
production, a god ; the fruit of trees, a god ;
drunken riot, a god ; carnal desire and pleasure,
a god. Hence the mysteries of Ceres and Pros-
erpine, the rape of the latter, and her subse-
quent restoration, by Pluto : hence the orgies of
Bacchus, and Hercules overcome by drunken-
ness as by a mightier god : hence the adulterous
rites of Cupid and of Venus : hence Jupiter him-
• Or Aphrodite.
' [Mtyar Ctbi' Kai nXovatOf,
ayrfyopivof . — ^"H'^]
Trapa Kat nAouTuji'a, Toi' OavaToy
self infatuated with the love of women, and of
Ganymede : " hence the licentious legends of
deities abandoned to effeminacy and pleas-
ure. Such were the weapons of superstition 5
whereby these cruel barbarians and enemies
of the Supreme God afflicted, and indeed en-
tirely subdued, the human race ; erecting every-
where the monuments of impiety, and rearing
in every corner the shrines and temples of
their false religion. Nay, so far were the 6
ruling powers of feliose times enslaved by
the force of error, as to appease their gods with
the blood of their own countrymen and kindred ;
to whet their swords against those who stood
forward to defend the truth ; to maintain a ruth-
less war and raise unholy hands, not against
foreign or barbarian foes, but against men
bound to them by the ties of family and affec-
tion, against brethren, and kinsmen, and dearest
friends, who had resolved, in the practice of
virtue and true piety, to honor and worship
God. Such was the spirit of madness with 7
which these princes sacrificed to their de-
mon deities men consecrated to the sendee of
the King of kings. On the other hand their
victims, as noble martyrs in the cause of true
godliness, resolved to welcome a glorious death
in preference to life itself, and utterly despised
these cruelties. Strengthened, as soldiers of
God, with patient fortitude, they mocked at
death in all its forms ; at fire, and sword, and
the torment of crucifixion ; at exposure to sav-
age beasts, and drowning in the depths of the
sea ; at the cutting off and searing of limbs, the
digging out of eyes, the mutilation of the whole
body ; lastly, at famine, the labor of the mines,
and captivity : nay, all these sufferings they
counted better than any earthly good or pleas-
ure, for the love they bore their heavenly King.
In like manner women also evinced a spirit of
constancy and courage not inferior to that
of men. Some endured the same conflicts 8
with them, and obtained a like reward of
their virtue : others, forcibly carried off to be
the victims of violence and pollution, welcomed
death rather than dishonor ; while many, very
many more, endured not even to hear the same
threats wherewith they were assailed by the
provincial governors, but boldly sustained every
variety of torture, and sentence of death in
every form.'* Thus did these valiant soldiers of
the Almighty Sovereign maintain the conflict
with steadfast fortitude of soul against the hos-
tile forces of polytheism : and thus did these
enemies of God and adversaries of man's sal-
vation, more cruel far than the ferocious savage,
delight in libations of human blood : thus did
' On these various names, compare Smith, Did. of Gr. and
Rom. Biog.
^ Kiir accniint of the various details of persecution mentioned,
compare the Church History,
THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
591
their ministers drain as it were the cup of un-
righteous slaughter in honor of the demons
whom they served, and prepare for them this
dread and impious banquet, to the ruin of
9 the human race. In these sad circum-
stances, what course should the God and
King of these afflicted ones pursue ? Could he
be careless of the safety of his dearest friends,
or abandon his servants in this great extremity?
Surely none could deem him a wary pilot, who,
without an effort to save his fellow-mariners,
should suffer his vessel to sink with all her crew :
surely no general could be found so reckless as
to yield his own allies, without resistance, to the
mercy of the foe : nor can a faithful shepherd
regard with unconcern the straying of a single
sheep from his flock, but will rather leave the
rest in safety, and dare all things for the wan-
derer's sake, even, if need be, to contend
10 with savage beasts. The zeal, however, of
the great Sovereign of all was for no uncon-
scious^ sheep : his care was exercised for his
own faithful host, for those who sustained the
battle for his sake : whose conflicts in the cause
of godliness he himself approved, and hon-
ored those who had returned to his presence
with the prize of victory which he only can
bestow, uniting them to the angelic choirs.
Others he still preserved on earth, to commu-
nicate the living seeds of piety to future gene-
rations ; to be at once eye-witnesses of his
vengeance on the ungodly, and narrators
11 of the events. After this he outstretched
his arm in judgment on the adversaries, and
utterly destroyed them with the stroke of Divine
wrath, compelling them, how reluctant soever,
to confess with their own lips and recant their
wickedness, but raising from the ground and
exalting gloriously those who had long been
12 oppressed and disclaimed by all. Such
were the dealings of the Supreme Sover-
eign, who ordained an invincible champion to
be the minister of his heaven-sent vengeance
(for our emperor's surpassing piety delights in
the title of Servant of God), and him he has
proved victorious over all that opposed him,
having raised him up, an individual against
inany foes. For they were indeed numberless,
being the friends of many evil spirits (though
in reality they were nothing, and hence are now
no more) ; but our emperor is one, appointed
by, and the representative of, the one Almighty
Sovereign. And they, in the very spirit of
impiety, destroyed the righteous with cruel
slaughter : but he, in imitation of his Saviour,
and knowing only how to save men's lives, has
spared and instructed in godliness the im-
13 pious themselves. And so, as truly worthy
the name of Victor, he has subdued the
6 "dAdyov."
twofold race of barbarians ; soothing the savage
tribes of men by prudent embassies, compelling
them to know and acknowledge their superiors,
and reclaiming them from a lawless and brutal
life to the governance of reason and humanity ;
at the same time that he proved by the facts
themselves that the fierce and ruthless race of
unseen spirits had long ago been vanquished by
a higher power. For he who is the preserver
of the universe had punished these invisible
spirits by an invisible judgment : and our em-
peror, as the delegate of the Supreme Sovereign,
has followed up the victory, bearing away the
spoils of those who have long since died and
mouldered into dust, and distributing the plun-
der with lavish hand among the soldiers of his
victorious Lord."
CHAPTER VIII.
For as soon as he understood that the 1
ignorant multitudes were inspired with a
vain and childish dread of these bugbears of
error, wrought in gold and silver, he judged
it right to remove these also, like stumbling-
stones thrown in the path of men walking in
the dark, and henceforward to open a royal
road, plain and unobstructed, to all. Hav- 2
ing formed this resolution, he considered
that no soldiers or military force of any sort
was needed for the repression of the evil : a
few of his own friends sufficed for this service,
and these he sent by a simple expression of
his will to visit each several province. Ac- 3
cordingly, sustained by confidence in the
emperor's piety and their own personal devo-
tion to God, they passed through the midst of
numberless tribes and nations, abolishing this
ancient system of error in every city and coun-
try. They ordered the priests themselves, in
the midst of general laughter and scorn, to
bring their gods from their dark recesses to the
light of day. They then stripped them of their
ornaments, and exhibited to the gaze of all the
unsightly reality which had been hidden beneath
a painted exterior : and lastly, whatever part of
the material appeared to be of value they scraped
off and melted in the fire to prove its worth,
after which they secured and set apart whatever
they judged needful for their purposes, leaving
to the superstitious worshipers what was alto-
gether useless, as a memorial of their
shame. Meanwhile our admirable prince 4
was himself engaged in a work similar to
that we have described. For at the same time
that these costly images of the dead were
stripped, as we have said, of their precious
'■ [That is, stripping the images of those whose temples he de-
stroyed, and apportioning the spoils among his Christian followers.
See the next chaiiter, which is mostly a transcript of the 54th and
55th chapters of the Third Book of the Life 0/ CoHsianiine. — Bag-]
592
CONSTANTINE.
materials, he also attacked those composed of
brass ; causing those to be dragged from their
places with ropes, and, as it were, carried away
captive, whom the dotage of mythology had
esteemed as gods. The next care of our august
emperor was to kindle, as it were, a brilliant
torch, by the light of which he directed his
imperial gaze around, to see if any hidden
5 vestiges of error might yet exist. And as
the keen-sighted eagle in its heavenward
flight is able to descry from its lofty height the
most distant objects on the earth : so did he,
whilst residing in the imperial palace of his own
fair city, discover, as from a watch-tower, a hid-
den and fatal snare of souls in the province of
Phoenicia. This was a grove and temple, not
situated in the midst of any city, or in any pub-
lic place, as for splendor of effect is gener-
6 ally the case, but apart from the beaten
and frequented road, on part of the summit
of Mount Lebanon, and dedicated to the foul
demon known by the name of Venus. It was
a school of wickedness for all the abandoned
votaries of impurity and such as destroyed their
bodies with effeminacy. Here men undeserv-
ing the name forgot the dignity of their sex, and
propitiated the demon by their effeminate con-
duct : here too unlawful commerce of women,
and adulterous intercourse, with other horrible
and infamous practices, were perpetrated in this
temple as in a place beyond the scope and re-
straint of law.
Meantime these evils remained unchecked by
the presence of any observer, since no one of
fair character ventured to visit such scenes.
7 These proceedings, however, could not es-
cape the vigilance of our august emperor,
who, having himself inspected them with char-
acteristic forethought, and judging that such a
temple was unfit for the light of heaven, gave
orders that the building with its offerings should
be utterly destroyed. Accordingly, in obedience
to the imperial edict, these engines of an impure
superstition were immediately abolished, and
the hand of military force was made instrumen-
tal in purging the place. And now those who
had heretofore lived without restraint, learned,
through the imperial threat of punishment,
8 to practice self-control. Thus did our
emperor tear the mask from this system of
delusive wickedness, and expose it to the public
gaze, at the same time proclaiming openly his
Saviour's name to all. No advocate appeared ;
neither god nor demon, prophet nor diviner,
could lend his aid to the detected authors of
the imposture. For the souls of men were no
longer enveloped in thick darkness : but enlight-
ened by the rays of true godliness, they deplored
the ignorance and ])itied the blindness of their
forefathers, rejoicing at the same time in their
own deliverance from such fatal error.^
Thus speedily, according to the counsel 9
of the mighty God, and through our em-
peror's agency, was every enemy, whether visible
or unseen, utterly removed : and henceforward
peace, the happy nurse of youth, extended her
reign throughout the world. Wars were no
more, for the gods were not : no more did war-
fare in country or town, no more did the effusion
of human blood, distress mankind, as hereto-
fore, when demon-worship and the madness of
idolatry prevailed.
CHAPTER IX.
And now we may well compare the pres- 1
ent with former things, and review these
happy changes in contrast with the evils that are
past, and mark the elaborate care with which in
ancient times porches and sacred precincts,
groves and temples, were prepared in every city
for these false deities, and how their shrines
were enriched with abundant offerings. The 2
sovereign rulers of those days had indeed a
high regard for the worship of the gods. The
nations also and people subject to their power
honored them with images both in the country
and in every city, nay, even in their houses and
secret chambers, according to the religious prac-
tice of their fathers. The fruit, however, of this
devotion, far different from the peaceful con-
cord which now meets our view, appeared in
war, in battles, and seditions, which harassed
them throughout their lives, and deluged their
countries with blood and civil slaughter.
Again, the objects of their worship could 3
hold out to these sovereigns with artful flat-
tery the promise of prophecies, and oracles, and
the knowledge of futurity : yet could they not
predict their own destruction, nor forewarn them-
selves of the coming ruin : and surely this was
the greatest and most convincing proof of
their imposture. Not one of those whose 4
words once were heard with awe and won-
der, had announced the glorious advent of the
Saviour of mankind,' or that new revelation of
divine knowledge which he came to give. Not
Pythius himself, nor any of those mighty gods,
could apprehend the prospect of their approach-
ing desolation ; nor could their oracles point at
him who was to be their conqueror and
destroyer. What prophet or diviner could 5
foretell that their rites would vanish at the
presence of a new Deity in the world, and that
the knowledge and worship of the Almighty
Sovereign should be freely given to all mankind?
' " The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I
thank thee that I am not as the rest of men."
' He seems to ilisagree with the view of the heathen prophecy
which his imperial hearer maintained in his Oration to tht Saints.
THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
593
Which of them foreknew the august and pious
reign of our victorious emperor, or his trium-
])hant coiKjuests everywhere over the false de-
mons, or the overthrow of their high places?
6 \\"nich of the heroes has announced the
melting down and conversion of the lifeless
statues from their useless forms to the necessary
uses of men? Which of the gods have yet had
jiower to speak of their own images thus melted
and contemptuously reduced to fragments?
7 Where were the protecting powers, that they
should not interpose to save their sacred
memorials, thus destroyed by man? Where, I
ask, are those who once maintained the strife of
war, yet now behold their conquerors abiding
securely in the profoundest peace ? And where
are they who upheld themselves in a blind and
foolish confidence, and trusted in these vanities
as gods ; but who, in the very height of their
superstitious error, and while maintaining an im-
placable war with the champions of the truth,
perished by a fate proportioned to their
8 crimes? Where is the giant race whose
arms were turned against heaven itself ; the
hissings of those serpents whose tongues were
pointed with impious words against the Almighty
King ? These adversaries of the Lord of all, con-
fident in the aid of a multitude of gods, advanced
to the attack with a powerful array of military
force, preceded by certain images of the dead,
and lifeless statues, as their defense. On the other
side our emperor, secure in the armor of godli-
ness, opposed to the numbers of the enemy the
salutary and life-giving Sign, as at the same time
a terror to the foe, and a protection against
every harm ; and returned victorious at once
over the enemy and the demons whom they
served.- And then, with thanksgiving and praise,
the tokens of a grateful spirit, to the Author of
his victory, he proclaimed this triumphant Sign,
by monuments as well as words, to all mankind,
erecting it as a mighty trophy against every
enemy in the midst of the imperial city, and
expressly enjoining on all to acknowledge this
imperishable symbol of salvation as the safe-
guard of the power of Rome and of the
9 empire of the world. Such were the in-
structions which he gave to his subjects
generally ; but especially to his soldiers, whom
he admonished to repose their confidence, not
in their weapons, or armor, or bodily strength,
but to acknowledge the Supreme God as the
giver of every good, and of victory itself.
10 Thus did the emperor himself, strange and
incredible as the fact may seem, become
the instructor of his army in their religious ex-
ercises, and teach them to offer pious prayers in
2 For details respecting the following enumeration, compare
the Life of Constantine, of which this is a r^sum^. This sen-
tence and the preceding are taken almost word for word from ch. i6
of Bk. II.
accordance with the divine ordinances, uplifting
their hands towards heaven, and raising their
mental vision higher still to the King of heaven,
on whom they should call as the Author of vic-
tory, their preserver, guardian, and helper. He
commanded too, that one day should be regarded
as a special occasion for religious worship ; I
mean that which is truly the first and chief of
all, the day of our Lord and Saviour ; that day
the name of which is connected with light,
and life, and immortality, and every good.
Prescribing the same pious conduct to him- 11
self, he honored his Saviour in the chambers
of his palace, performing his devotions accord-
ing to the Divine commands, and storing his
mind with instruction through the hearing of the
sacred word. The entire care of his household
was intrusted to ministers devoted to the service
of God, and distinguished by gravity of life and
every other virtue ; while his trusty body-guards,
strong in affection and fidelity to his person,
found in their emperor an instructor in
the practice of a godly life. Again, the 12
honor with which he regards the victori-
ous Sign is founded on his actual experience
of its divine efficacy. Before this the hosts
of his enemies have disappeared : by this
the powers of the unseen spirits have been
turned to flight : through this the proud boast-
ings of God's adversaries have come to nought,
and the tongues of the profane and blasphe-
mous been put to silence. By this Sign the
Barbarian tribes were vanquished : through
this the rites of superstitious fraud received a
just rebuke : by this our emperor, discharging
as it were a sacred debt, has performed the
crowning good of all, by erecting triumphant
memorials of its value in all parts of the world,
raising temples and churches on a scale of royal
costliness, and commanding all to unite in
constructing the sacred houses of prayer.
Accordingly these signal proofs of our em- 13
peror's magnificence forthwith appeared in
the provinces and cities of the empire, and soon
shone conspicuously in every country ; convinc-
ing memorials of the rebuke and overthrow of
those impious tyrants who but a little while
before had madly dared to fight against God,
and, raging like savage dogs, had vented on
unconscious buildings that fury which they were
unable to level against him ; had thrown to the
ground and upturned the very foundations of
the houses of prayer, causing them to present
the appearance of a city captured and aban-
doned to the enemy. Such was the exhibition
of that wicked spirit whereby they sought as it
were to assail God himself, but soon experi-
enced the result of their own madness and
folly. But a little time elapsed, when a single
blast of the storm of Heaven's displeasure swept
VOL. I.
Qq
594
CONSTANTINE.
them utterly away, leaving neither kindred, nor
offspring, nor memorial of their existence among
men : for all, numerous as they were, disap-
peared as in a moment beneath the stroke
14 of Divine vengeance. Such, then, was the
fate which awaited these furious adversaries
of God : but he who, armed with the salutary
Trophy, had alone opposed them (nay rather,
not alone, but aided by the presence and the
power of him who is the only Sovereign), has
replaced the ruined edifices on a greater scale,
and made the second far superior to the first.
For example, besides erecting various churches
to the honor of God in the city which bears his
name, and adorning the Bithynian capital with
another on the greatest and most splendid scale,
he has distinguished the principal cities of the
other provinces by structures of a similar
15 kind. Above all, he has selected two places
in the eastern division of the empire, the
one in Palestine (since from thence the life-
giving stream has flowed as from a fountain for
the blessing of all nations), the other in that me-
tropolis of the East which derives its name from
that of Antiochus ; in which, as the head of that
portion of the empire, he has consecrated to
the service of God a church of unparalleled
size and beauty. The entire building is encom-
passed by an enclosure of great extent, within
which the church itself rises to a vast elevation,
of an octagonal form, surrounded by many
chambers and courts on every side, and dec-
orated with ornaments of the richest kind."
16 Such was his work here. Again, in the
province of Palestine, in that city which
was once the seat of Hebrew sovereignty, on
the very site of the Lord's sepulchre, he has
raised a church of noble dimensions, and
adorned a temple sacred to the salutary Cross
with rich and lavish magnificence, honoring that
everlasting monument, and the trophies of the
Saviour's victory over the power of death, with
a splendor which no language can describe.
17 In the same country he discovered three
places venerable as the localities of three
sacred caves : and these also he adorned with
costly structures, paying a fitting tribute of rev-
erence to the scene of the first manifestation of
the Saviour's presence ; while at the second
cavern he hallowed the remembrance of his
final ascension from the mountain top ; and
celebrated his mighty conflict, and the victory
which crowned it, at the third.* All these
places our emperor thus adorned in the hope
of proclaiming the symbol of redemption to
2 Almost word for word from the Life, Bk. III. ch. 50.
* [In the Life of Cotisiaittine (vide [Bk. III. ch. 41] supra),
Euscbius mentions two caves only, and speaks of the churches built
by Helena at Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives. He here al-
ludes to the magnificent church erected by Constantinc at the Lord's
sepulchre, and ascribes to him those of Helena also, as having been
raised at the emperor's expense. Valesius, ad loc, — Dag.\
all mankind ; that Cross which has in- 18
deed repaid his pious zeal ; through which
his house and throne alike have prospered, his
reign has been confirmed for a lengthened series
of years, and the rewards of virtue bestowed on
his noble sons, his kindred, and their de-
scendants. And surely it is a mighty evi- 19
dence of the power of that God whom
he serves, that he has held the balances of
justice with an equal hand, and has apportioned
to each party their due reward. With regard
to the destroyers of the houses of prayer, the
penalty of their impious conduct followed hard
upon them : forthwith were they swept away,
and left neither race, nor house, nor family
behind. On the other hand, he whose pious
devotion to his Lord is conspicuous in his every
act, who raises royal temples to his honor, and
proclaims his name to his subjects by sacred
offerings throughout the world, he, I say, has de-
servedly experienced him to be the preser\'er
and defender of his imperial house and race.
Thus clearly have the dealings of God been
manifested, and this through the sacred efficacy
of the salutary Sign.
CHAPTER X.
Much might indeed be said of this salu- 1
tary Sign, by those who are skilled in the
mysteries of our Divine religion. For it is in
very truth the symbol of salvation, wondrous to
speak of, more wondrous still to conceive ; the
appearance of which on earth has thrown the
fictions of all false religion from the beginning
into the deepest shade, has buried superstitious
error in darkness and oblivion, and has revealed
to all that spiritual light which enlightens the
souls of men, even the knowledge of the
only true God. Hence the universal change 2
for the better, which leads men to spurn
their lifeless idols, to trample under foot the
lawless rites of their demon deities, and laugh
to scorn the time-honored follies of their fathers.
Hence, too, the establishment in every ])lace of
those schools of sacred learning, wherein men
are taught the precepts of saving truth, and
dread no more those objects of creation which
are seen by the natural eye, nor direct a gaze
of wonder at the sun, the moon, or stars ; but
acknowledge him who is above all these, that
invisible Being who is the Creator of them
all, and learn to worship him alone. Such 3
are the blessings resulting to mankind from
this great and wondrous Sign, by virtue of which
the e\'ils which once existed are now no more,
and virtues heretofore unknown shine every-
where resplendent with the light of true
godliness. Discourses, and precepts, and 4
THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
595
exhortations to a virtuous and holy life, are
proclaimed in the ears of all nations. Nay, the
emperor himself proclaims them : and it is in-
deed a marvel that this mighty prince, raising
his voice in the hearing of all the world, like an
interpreter of the Almighty Sovereign's will,
invites his subjects in every country to the
5 knowledge of the true God. No more, as
in former times, is the babbling of impious
men heard in the imperial palace ; but priests
and pious worshipers of God together celebrate
his majesty with royal hymns of jiraise. The
name of the one Supreme Ruler of the universe
is proclaimed to all : the gospel of glad tidings
connects the human race with its Almighty King,
declaring the grace and love of the heavenly
Father to his children on the earth. His praise is
everywhere sung in triumphant strains : the voice
of mortal man is blended with the har-
6 mony of the angelic choirs in heaven ; and
the reasoning soul employs the body which
invests it as an instrument for sounding forth
a fitting tribute of praise and adoration to
his name. The nations of the East and the
West are instructed at the same moment in his
precepts : the people of the Northern and
Southern regions unite with one accord, under
the influence of the same principles and laws,
in the pursuit of a godly life, in praising the one
Supreme God, in acknowledging his only be-
gotten Son theii Saviour as the source of every
blessing, and our emperor as the one ruler on
the earth, together with his pious sons.
7 He himself, as a skillful pilot, sits on high at
the helm of state, and directs the vessel with
unerring course, conducting his people as it
were with favoring breeze to a secure and tran-
quil haven. Meanwhile God himself, the great
Sovereign, extends the right hand of his power
from above for his protection, giving him vic-
tory over every foe, and estabUshing his empire
by a lengthened period of years : and he will
bestow on him yet higher blessings, and confirm
in every deed the truth of his own promises.
But on these we may not at present dwell ; but
must await the change to a better world : for it
is not given to mortal eyes or ears of flesh, fully
to apprehend the things of God.^
CHAPTER XL
1 And now, victorious and mighty Con-
stantine, in this discourse, whose noble
argument is the glory of the Almighty King, let
me lay before thee some of the mysteries of his
sacred truth : not as presuming to instruct thee,
who art thyself taught of God ; nor to disclose
' At this point, according to some (compare Special Prolegom-
ena), one oration ends and another begins.
to thee those secret wonders which he himself,
not througli the agency of man, but through our
common Saviour, and the frequent light of his
Divine presence has long since revealed and
unfolded to thy view : but in the hope of lead-
ing the unlearned to the light, and disjjlaying
before those who know them not the causes
and motives of thy pious deeds. True it is 2
that thy noble efforts for the daily worship
and honor of the Supreme God throughout the
habitable world, are the theme of universal
praise. Ikit those records of gratitude to thy
Saviour and Preserver which thou hast dedicated
in our own province of Palestine, and in that
city from which as from a fountain-head the
Saviour Word ' has issued forth to all mankind ;
and again, the hallowed edifices and consecrated
temples which thou hast raised as trophies of
his victory over death ; and those lofty and
noble structures, imperial monuments of an
imperial spirit, which thou hast erected in honor
of the everlasting memory of the Saviour's tomb ;
the cause, 1 say, of these things is not equally
obvious to all. Those, indeed, who are en- 3
lightened in heavenly knowledge by the
power of the Divine Spirit, well understand the
cause, and justly admire and bless thee for that
counsel and resolution which Heaven itself in-
spired. On the other hand the ignorant and
spiritually blind regard these designs with open
mockery and scorn, and deem it a strange and
unworthy thing indeed that so mighty a prince
should waste his zeal on the graves and
monuments of the dead. " Were it not 4
better," such a one might say, " to cherish
those rites which are hallowed by ancient usage ;
to seek the favor of those gods and heroes whose
worship is observed in every province ; instead
of rejecting and disclaiming them, because sub-
ject to the calamities incident to man ? Surely
they may claim equal honors with him who him-
self has suffered : or, if they are to be rejected,
as not exempt from the sorrows of humanity,
the same award would justly be pronounced
respecting him." Thus, with important and
contracted brow, might he give utterance in
pompous language to his self-imagined
wisdom. Filled with compassion for this 5
ignorance, the gracious Word of our most
beneficent Father freely invites, not such a one
alone, but all who are in the path of error, to
receive instruction in Divine knowledge ; and
has ordained the means of such instruction
throughout the world, in every country and vil-
lage, in cultivated and desert lands alike, and in
every city : and, as a gracious Saviour and Phy-
sician of the soul, calls on the Greek and the
Barbarian, the wise and the unlearned, the rich
' Here the author seems to speak doubly of the Word and the
word.
Qq
596
CONST ANTINE.
and the poor, the servant and his master, the
subject and his lord, the ungodly, the profane,
the ignorant, the evil-doer, the blasphemer,
alike to draw near, and hasten to receive his
heavenly cure. And thus in time past had he
clearly announced to all the pardon of former
transgressions, saying, " Come unto me, all ye
that labor and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest."^ And again, "I am not come
to call the righteous, but sinners, to repent-
ance." ^ And he adds the reason, saying, " For
they that are whole need not a physician, but
they that are sick."^ And again, " I desire not
the death of a sinner, but rather that he
6 should repent."^ Hence it is only for those
who are themselves instructed in Divine
things and understand the motives of that zeal
of which these works are the result, to a])pre-
ciate the more than human impulse by which
our emperor was guided, to admire his piety
toward God, and to believe his care for the
memorial of our Saviour's resurrection to be a
desire imparted from above, and truly inspired
by that Sovereign, to be whose faithful servant
and minister for good is his proudest boast.
7 In full persuasion, then, of thy approval,
most mighty emperor, I desire at this pres-
ent time to proclaim to all the reasons and mo-
tives of thy pious works. I desire to stand as
the interpreter of thy designs, to explain the
counsels of a soul devoted to the love of God.
I propose to teach all men, what all should
know who care to understand the principles on
which our Saviour God employs his power, the
reasons for which he who was the pre-existent
Controller of all things at length descended to
us from heaven : the reasons for which he as-
sumed our nature, and submitted even to the
power of death. I shall declare the causes of
that immortal life which followed, and of his
resurrection from the dead. Once more, I
shall adduce convincing proofs and argvuiients,
for the sake of those who yet need such
8 testimony : and now let me commence my
appointed task.
Those who transfer the worship due to that
God who formed and rules the world to the
works of his hand ; who hold the sun and moon,
or other parts of this material system, nay, the
elements themselves, earth, water, air, and fire,
in equal honor with the Creator of them all ;
who give the name of gods to things which
2 Matt. xi. 28.
3 Matt. xi. 13. R. v.: "For I came not to call the righteous,
but sinners." The text here has the reading eicrnfTavoiav, omitted
by Tischendorf and the revisers with XU, etc., but supported by
CEGKL, sab. cop., etc. It is worth noting that it is not in the Sina-
itic, and if this text reading is correct it would nearly overthrow the
possibility that this MS. was one of those prepared under the direc-
tion of Eusebius. * Matt. xi. 12.
'' Ezek. xviii. 23. R. V.; " Have I any pleasure in the death of
the wicked, saith the Lord God: and not rather that he should
return from his way and live ? "
never would have had existence, or even name,
except as obedient to that Word of God who
made the world : such persons in my judgment
resemble those who overlook the master hand
which gives its magnificence to a royal palace ;
and, while lost in wonder at its roofs and walls,
the paintings of varied beauty and coloring
which adorn them, and its gilded ceilings and
sculptures, ascribe to them the praise of that
skill which belongs to the artist whose work
they are : whereas they should assign the cause
of their wonder, not to these visible objects, but
to the architect himself, and confess that the
proofs of skill are indeed manifest, but that he
alone is the possessor of that skill who has
made them what they are. Again, well 9
might we liken those to children, who
should admire the seven-stringed lyre, and dis-
regard him who invented or has power to use
it : or those who forget the valiant warrior, and
adorn his spear and shield with the chaplet of
victory : or, lastly, those who hold the squares
and streets, the public buildings, temples, and
gymnasia of a great and royal city in equal honor
with its founder ; forgetting that their admira-
tion is due, not to lifeless stones, but to him
whose wisdom planned and executed these
mighty works. Not less absurd is it for 10
those who regard this universe with the
natural eye to ascribe its origin to the sun, or
moon, or any other heavenly body. Rather let
them confess that these are themselves the
works of a higher wisdom, remember the Maker
and Framer of them all, and render to him the
praise and honor above all created objects. Nay
rather, inspired by the sight of these very objects,
let them address themselves with full purpose of
heart to glorify and worship him who is now
invisible to mortal eye, but perceived by the
clear and unclouded vision of the soul, the
supremely sovereign Word of God. To take the
instance of the human body : no one has yet
conferred the attribute of wisdom on the eyes,
or head, the hands, or feet, or other members,
far less on the outward clothing, of a wise and
learned man : no one terms the philosopher's
household furniture and utensils, wise : but
every rational person admires that invisible and
secret power, the mind of the man himself.
How much more, then, is our admiration 11
due, not to the visible mechanism of the
universe, material as it is, and formed of the self-
same elements ; but to that invisible Word who
has moulded and arranged it all, who is the only-
begotten Son of God, and whom the Maker of
all things, who far transcends all being, has be-
gotten of himself, and appointed Lord and
Governor of this universe? For since it 12
was impossible that perishable bodies, or the
rational spirits which he had created, should
THE ORATION OF KUSEBIUS.
597
approach the Supreme God, by reason of their
immeasurable distance from his perfections, for
he is unbegotten, above and beyond all creation,
ineffable, inaccessible, unapproachable, dwelling,
as his holy word assures us,"^ in the light which
none can enter ; but they were created from
nothing, and are infinitely far removed from his
unbegotten Essence ; well has the all-gracious
and Almighty God interposed as it were an inter-
mediate Power" between himself and them, even
the Divine omnipotence of his only-begotten
Word. And this Power, which is in perfect
nearness and intimacy of union, with the Father,
which abides in him, and shares his secret coun-
sels, has yet condescended, in fullness of grace,
as it were to conform itself to those who are so
far removed from the supreme majesty of God.
How else, consistently with his own holiness,
could he who is far above and beyond all things
unite himself to corruptible and corporeal mat-
ter? Accordingly the Divine Word, thus con-
necting himself with this universe, and receiving
into his hands the reins, as it were, of the world,
turns and directs it as a skillful charioteer ac-
13 cording to his own will and pleasure. The
proof of these assertions is evident. For
supposing that those component parts of the
world which we call elements, as earth, water,
air, and fire, the nature of which is manifestly
without intelligence, are self-existent; and if
they have one common essence, which they who
are skilled in natural science call the great re-
ceptacle, mother, and nurse of all things ; and if
this itself be utterly devoid of shape and figure,
of soul and reason ; whence shall we say it has
obtained its present form and beauty? To
what shall we ascribe the distinction of the
elements, or the union of things contrary in
their very nature? Who has commanded the
liquid water to sustain the heavy element of
earth? Who has turned back the waters from
their downward course, and carried them aloft
in clouds? Who has bound the force of fire,
and caused it to lie latent in wood, and to com-
bine with substances most contrary to itself?
Who has mingled the cold air with heat, and
thus "reconciled the enmity of opposing princi-
ples? Who has devised the continuous suc-
'■' I Tim. vi. i6.
^ [This whole passage (which is defended by Valesius) appears,
if rigidly interpreted, to lie under suspicion of a tinge of Ananism.
• — Bag.] It savors directly of Philo. His doctrine was of an in-
effable God, above and separate from matter, and defiled by any
contact with it. To bring him into connection with created things
he introduced intermediate beings, or " powers," the universal power
including all the rest being the Logos. Compare brief account in
Zeller's Oittlincs of Greek Philosophy, p. 320-325; Siegfried, Philo
von Alexandria (Jena, 1875), especially p. igg sq., 219 sq., and
p. 362-364, where he treats very inadequately of Eusebius' depend-
ence on Philo; also works of Philo and Eusebius' Pnep. and De-
monst. Ey. There is a chance of viewing the Word thus as created,
but if this is guarded against (as it is by him in the use of " be-
gotten "), there is nothing intrinsically heterodox in making the
Word the Creator of the world and only Revealer of the Father.
The direct Philonian influence is seen in the phraseology of the
following sentences.
cession of the human race, and given it as it
were an endless term of duration? Who has
moulded the male and female form, adapted
their mutual relations with perfect harmony, and
given one common principle of production to
every living creature? Who changes the char-
acter of the fluid and corruptible seed, which in
itself is void of reason, and gives it its ])rolific
power? Who is at this moment working these
and ten thousand effects more wonderful than
these, nay, surpassing all wonder, and with in-
visible influence is daily and hourly perpet-
uating the production of them all ? Surely 14
the wonder-working and truly omnipotent
Word of God may well be deemed the efficient
cause of all these things : that Word who,
diffusing himself through all creation, pervad-
ing height and depth with incorporeal energy,
and embracing the length and breadth of the
universe within his mighty grasp, has com-
pacted and reduced to order this entire sys-
tem, from whose unreasoned and formless matter
he has framed for himself an instrument of per-
fect harmony, the nicely balanced chords and
notes of which he touches with all-wise and un-
erring skill. He it is who governs the sun, and
moon, and the other luminaries of heaven by
inexplicable laws, and directs their motions
for the service of the universal whole. It 15
is this Word of God who has stooped to the
earth on which we live, and created the manifold
species of animals, and the fair varieties of the
vegetable world. It is this same Word who has
penetrated the recesses of the deep, has given
their being to the finny race, and produced the
countless forms of life which there exist. It is
he who fashions the burden of the womb, and
informs it in nature's laboratory with the princi-
ple of life. By him the fluid and heavy moisture
is raised on high, and then, sweetened by a puri-
fying change, descends in measured quantities
to the earth, and at stated seasons in more
profuse supply. Like a skillful husbandman, 16
he fully irrigates the land, tempers the moist
and dry in just proportion, diversifying the whole
with brilliant flowers, with aspects of varied
beauty, with pleasant fragrance, with alternating
varieties of fruits, and countless gratifications for
the taste of men. But why do I dare essay a
hopeless task, to recount the mighty works of
the Word of God, and describe an energy which
surpasses mortal thought ? By some, indeed, he
has been termed the Nature of the universe, by
others, the World-Soul, by others, Fate. Others
again have declared him to be the most High
God himself, strangely confounding things most
widely different ; bringing down to this earth,
uniting to a corruptible and material body, and
assigning to that supreme and unbegotten Power
who is Lord of all an intermediate place between
598
CONSTANTINE.
irrational animals and rational mortals on the one
hand, and immortal beings on the other.^
CHAPTER XII.
1 On the other hand, the sacred doctrine
teaches that he who is the supreme Source
of good, and Cause of all things, is beyond all
comprehension, and therefore inexpressible by
word, or speech, or name ; surpassing the power,
not of language only, but of thought itself. Un-
circumscribed by place, or body ; neither in
heaven, nor in ethereal space, nor in any other
part of the universe ; but entirely independent
of all things else, he pervades the depths of un-
explored and secret wisdom. The sacred ora-
cles teach us to acknowledge him as the only
true God,' apart from all corporeal essence, dis-
tinct from all subordinate ministration. Hence
it is said that all things are from him, but
2 not through him.- And he himself dwelling
as Sovereign in secret and undiscovered re-
gions of unapproachable light, ordains and dis-
poses all things by the single power of his own
will. At his will whatever is, exists ; without
that will, it cannot be. And his will is in every
case for good, since he is essentially Goodness
itself. But he through whom are all things, even
God the Word, proceeding in an ineffable man-
ner from the Father above, as from an everlast-
ing and exhaustless fountain, flows onward like
a river with a full and abundant stream of power
for the preservation of the universal whole.
3 And now let us select an illustration from
our own experience. The invisible and un-
discovered mind within us, the essential nature
of which no one has ever known, sits as a mon-
arch in the seclusion of his secret chambers, and
alone resolves on our course of action. From
this proceeds the only-begotten word from its
father's bosom, begotten in a manner and by a
power inexplicable to us ; and is the first mes-
' [Of this somewhat obscure passage, a translator can do no
more than give as nearly as jiossible a literal version. The intelli-
gent reader will not fail to perceive that the author, here and in the
following chapter, has trodden on very dangerous ground. — Bag.}
Compare above notes on the relations of Eusebius and Philo.
t [Referring, apparently, to John xvii. 3, " And this is life eternal,
that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom
thou hast sent; " a passage which has been called a stronghold of
the impugners of the Deity of Christ; but which, simply considered
with its context, cannot fairly be understood to indicate any inferior-
ity of the Son to the Father; but rather appears to speak of the
mission of the former as the manifestation of the grace of him who is
called " the only true Ood " in contradistinction to the polytheism of
the heathen world. In other words, the knowledge of " the only
true God," in connection with that of " Jesus Christ whom he has
sent," constitutes " eternal life"; the one being incfrcctual, and in-
deed impossible, without the other. — Bng.} Compare i John v. 20-
21 : " That we know him that is true and we are in him that is true,
even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life,"
which seems to show that John had no idea of any subordination in
essence in this matter.
- [But see, for a refutation of this statement, Rom. xi. 36, and
Heb. ii. 10. — Sng | Yet the second of these references clearly re-
fers to the Son. Kusebius, speaking of God the Father, has in mind
the truth that all things were made by the Son, " and without him
was not anything made that hath been made." John i. 3.
senger of its father's thoughts, declares his secret
counsels, and, conveying itself to the ears
of others, accomplishes his designs. And 4
thus the advantage of this faculty is en-
joyed by all : yet no one has ever yet beheld
that invisible and hidden mind, which is the
parent of the word itself.^ In the same man-
ner, or rather in a manner which far surpasses
all likeness or comparison, the perfect Word of
the Supreme God, as the only-begotten Son
of the Father (not consisting in the power of
utterance, nor comprehended in syllables and
parts of speech, nor conveyed by a voice which
vibrates on the air ; but being himself the liv-
ing and effectual Word of the most High, and
subsisting personally as the Power and Wisdom
of God),* proceeds from his Father's Deity
and kingdom.^ Thus, being the perfect Off-
spring of a perfect Father, and the common
Preserver of all things, he diffuses himself with
living power throughout creation, and pours
from his own fullness abundant supplies of rea-
son,'' wisdom, light, and every other blessing,
not only on objects nearest to himself, but on
those most remote, whether in earth, or sea,
or any other sphere of being. To all these 5
he appoints with perfect equity their limits,
places, laws, and inheritance, allotting to each
their suited portion according to his sovereign
will. To some he assigns the super-terrestrial
regions, to others heaven itself as their habita-
tion : others he places in ethereal space, others
in air, and others still on earth. He it is who
transfers mankind from hence to another sphere,
impartially reviews their conduct here, and be-
stows a recompense according to the life and
habits of each. By him provision is made for
the life and food, not of rational creatures only,
but also of the brute creation, for the ser-
vice of men ; and while to the latter he 6
grants the enjoyment of a perishable and
fleeting term of existence, the former he invites
to a share in the possession of immortal life.
Thus universal is the agency of the Word of
God : everywhere present, and pervading all
things by the power of his intelligence, he
looks upward to his l''ather, and governs this
lower creation, inferior to and consequent upon
himself, in accordance with his will, as the
common Preserver of all things. Interme- 7
^ The author is now speaking especially of the spoken or " ex-
pressed " word.
■• Compare i Cor. i. 24.
'> This conception that the Divine Word stands in something the
same relation with the Father that the human word (internal and
external) does to the human spirit has, at least, an interesting sug-
gestion towards the unraveling of this curious mystery, which, for
lack of a better word, it is the fashion just now to call a human per-
sonality, and which certainly is made in the image and likeness of
God. Unless there lurks in the idea some subtle heresy, one may
venture to accept as an interesting analogy this relation of invisible
self, self expressed to self (internal word), self revealed (external
word), and an expression carried to the point of embodiment (in-
carnation).
" " Logos " again, — here the internal word.
THE ORATION OF ICUSEBIUS.
599
diate, as it were, and attracting the created to
the uncreated Essence, this Word of God exists
as an unbroken bond between the two, uniting
things most widely different by an inseparable
tie. He is the Providence which rules the
universe ; the guardian and director of the
whole : he is the Power and Wisdom of God,
the only-begotten God, the Word begotten of
Gotl himself. For " In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. All things were made by him ;
and without him was not anything made that
hath been made " ; as we learn from the words
of the sacred writer.'' Through his vivifying
power all nature grows and flourishes, refreshed
by his continual showers, and invested
8 with a vigor and beauty ever new. Guiding
the reigns of the universe, he holds its on-
ward course in conformity to the Father's will ;
and moves, as it were, the helm of this mighty
ship. This glorious Agent, the only-begotten
Son of the Supreme (iod, begotten by the
Father as his perfect Offspring, the Father has
given to this world as the highest of all goods ;
infusing his word, as spirit into a lifeless body,
into unconscious nature ; imparting light and
energy to that which in itself was a rude, inani-
mate, and formless mass, through the Divine
power. Him therefore it is ours to acknowl-
edge and regard as everywhere present, and
giving life to matter and the elements of na-
ture : ^ in him we see Light, even the spiritual
offspring of inexpressible Light : one indeed in
essence, as being the Son of one Father; but
possessing in himself many and varied
9 powers. The world is indeed divided into
many parts : yet let us not therefore sup-
pose that there are many independent Agents :
nor, though creation's works be manifold, let
us thence assume the existence of many gods.
How grievous the error of those childish and
infatuated advocates of polytheistic worship, who
deify the constituent parts of the universe, and
divide into many that system which is only
10 one ! Such conduct resembles theirs who
should abstract the eyes of an individual
man, and term them the man himself, and the
ears, another man, and so the head : or again,
by an effort of thought should separate the neck,
the breast and shoulders, the feet and hands,
or other members, nay, the very powers of
sense, and thus pronounce an individual to be
a multitude of men. Such folly must surely be
rewarded with contempt by men of sense. Yet
such is he who from the component parts of a
single world can devise for himself a multitude
of gods, or even deem that world which is the
' John i. 1-3.
' One on the scent for heresy might prick up his ears, and sound
the alarm of " Gnosticism."
work of a Creator, and consists of many parts,
to be itself a god : '' nut knowing that the IJivine
Nature can in no sense be divisible into parts ;
since, if compounded, it must be so through
the agency of another power ; and that which
is so compounded can never be Divine. How
indeed could it be so, if composed of unequal
and dissimilar, and licnce of worse and better
elements? Simple, indivisible, uncomi)ounded,
the Divine Nature exists at an infinite eleva-
tion above the visible constitution of this
world. And hence we are assured by the 11
clear testimony of the sacred Herald,'"
that the Word of God, who is before all things,
must be the sole Preserver of all intelligent
beings : while God, who is above all, and the
Author of the generation of the Word, being
himself the Cause of all things, is rightly called
the Father of the Word, as of his only-begotten
Son, himself acknowledging no superior Cause.
God, therefore, himself is One, and from him
proceeds the one only-begotten Word, the om-
nipresent Preserver of all things. And as the
many-stringed lyre is composed of different
chords, both sharp and flat, some slightly, others
tensely strained, and others intermediate between
the two extremes, yet all attuned according to
the rules of harmonic art ; even so this material
world, compounded as it is of many elements,
containing opposite and antagonist principles, as
moisture and dryness, cold and heat, yet blended
into one harmonious whole, may justly be termed
a mighty instrument framed by the hand of God :
an instrument on which the Divine Word, him-
self not composed of parts or opposing prin-
ciples, but indivisible and uncompounded, per-
forms with peafect skill, and produces a melody
at once accordant with the will of his Father the
Supreme Lord of all, and glorious to himself.
Again, as there are manifold external and in-
ternal parts and members comprised in a single
body, yet one invisible soul, one undivided and
incorporeal mind pervades the whole ; so is it
in this creation, which, consisting of many parts,
yet is but one : and so the One mighty, yea,
Almighty Word of God, pervading all things,
and diffusing himself with undeviating energy
throughout this universe, is the Cause of all
things that exist therein. Survey the com- 12
pass of this visible world. Seest thou not
how the same heaven contains within itself the
countless courses and companies of the stars?
" A curious work just issued (anonymous), under the autliority
of the Bureau of Education, very complacently evolves the truth of
existence out of the author's pure, untrammeled consciousness, —
for he has never read any works either on science or on theology, —
and arrives at the condescending conclusion that there is a God;
or rather, in the words of Eusebius, the author comes to " deem
that world . . . to be itself God."
'" [Referring (says Valesius) to St. John, whose words Eusebius
had lately cited, " In the beginning was the Word," &c., and now
explains paraphrastically. The reader will decide for himself on
the merits of the paraphrase. — Sa^.}
6oo
CONSTANTINE.
Again, the sun is one, and yet eclipses many,
nay all other luminaries, by the surpassing glory
of his rays. Even so, as the Father himself is
One, his Word is also One, the perfect Son of
that perfect Father. Should any one object
because they are not more, as well might he
complain that there are not many suns, or moons,
or worlds, and a thousand things beside ; like
the madman, who would fain subvert the fair
and perfect course of Nature herself. As in the
visible, so also in the spiritual world : in the one
the same sun diffuses his light throughout this
material earth ; in the other the One Almighty
Word of God illumines all things with in-
13 visible and secret power. Again, there is
in man one spirit, and one faculty of reason,
which yet is the active cause of numberless
effects. The same mind, instructed in many
things, will essay to cultivate the earth, to build
and guide a ship, and construct houses : nay,
the one mind and reason of man is capable of
acquiring knowledge in a thousand forms : the
same mind shall understand geometry and as-
tronomy, and discourse on the rules of grammar,
and rhetoric, and the healing art. Nor will it
excel in science only, but in practice too : and
yet no one has ever supposed the existence of
many minds in one human form, nor expressed
his wonder at a plurality of being in man, be-
cause he is thus capable of varied knowl-
14 edge. Suppose one were to find a shape-
less mass of clay, to mould it with his hands,
and give it the form of a living creature ; the
head in one figure, the hands and feet in an-
other, the eyes and cheeks in a third, and so
to fashion the ears, the mouth and nose, the
breast and shoulders, according to the rules of
the plastic art. The result, indeed, is a variety
of figure, of parts and members in the one body ;
yet must we not suppose it the work of many
hands, but ascribe it entirely to the skill of a
single artist, and yield the tribute of our praise
to him who by the energy of a single mind has
framed it all. The same is true of the universe
itself, which is one, though consisting of many
parts : yet surely we need not suppose many
creative powers, nor invent a plurality of gods.
Our duty is to adore the all-wise and all-perfect
agency of him who is indeed the Power and the
Wisdom of God, whose undivided force and
energy pervades and penetrates the universe,
creating and giving life to all things, and furnish-
ing to all, collectively and severally, those mani-
fold supplies of which he is himself the
15 source. Even so one and the same im-
pression of the solar rays illumines the air
at once, gives light to the eyes, warmth to the
touch, fertility to the earth, and growth to plants.
The same luminary constitutes the course of
time, governs the motions of the stars, performs
the circuit of the heavens, imparts beauty to the
earth, and displays the power of God to all :
and all this he performs by the sole and unaided
force of his own nature. In like manner fire
has the property of refining gold, and fusing
lead, of dissolving wax, of parching clay, and
consuming wood ; producing these varied
effects by one and the same burning power. 16
So also the Supreme Word of God, per-
vading all things, everywhere existent, every-
where present in heaven and earth, governs and
directs the visible and invisible creation, the sun,
the heaven, and the universe itself, with an
energy inexplicable in its nature, irresistible in
its effects. From him, as from an everlasting
fountain, the sun, the moon, and stars receive
their light : and he forever rules that heaven
which he has framed as the fitting emblem of his
own greatness. The angelic and spiritual powers,
the incorporeal and intelligent beings which
exist beyond the sphere of heaven and earth,
are filled by him with light and life, with wisdom
and virtue, with all that is great and good, from
his own peculiar treasures. Once more, with
one and the same creative skill, he ceases not
to furnish the elements with substance, to regu-
late the union and combinations, the forms and
figures, and the innumerable qualities of organ-
ized bodies ; preserving the varied distinctions
of animal and vegetable life, of the rational and
the brute creation ; and supplying all things to
all with equal power : thus proving himself the
Author, not indeed of the seven-stringed lyre,"
but of that system of perfect harmony which is
the workmanship of the One world-creating
Word.i-
CHAPTER XIII.
And now let us proceed to explain the 1
reasons for which this mighty Word of God
descended to dwell with men. Our ignorant
and foolish race, incapable of comprehending
him who is the Lord of heaven and earth, pro-
ceeding from his Father's Deity as from the
supreme fountain, ever present throughout the
world, and evincing by the clearest proofs his
providential care for the interests of man ; have
ascribed the adorable title of Deity to the sun,
and moon, the heaven and the stars of heaven.
Nor did they stop here, but deified the earth
itself, its products, and the various substances
by which animal life is sustained, and devised
" [In reference, sinjjularly enough, to the illustration of the lyre
in the preceding chapter. — /iu.C-]
'- It is idle to treat as philosophically or theoloRically unworthy
of consideration a system of thought so definitely unified, and with
such Scriptural basis as the above. It may not be profound or
original, but is definite and clear.
THE ORATION OK KUSEBIUS.
60 1
images of Ceres, of Proserpine, of Bacchus,"
2 and many such as those. Nay, they shrank
not from giving the name of gods to the
very conceptions of their own minds, and the
speech by which those conceptions are ex-
pressed; calhng the miml itself Minerva, and
language Mercury,^ and affixing the names of
Mnemosyne and the Muses to those facuhies by
means of which science is acquired. Nor was
even this enough : advancing still more rapidly
in the career of impiety and folly, they deified
their own evil passions, which it behooved them
to regard with aversion, or restrain by the prin-
ciples of self-control. Their very lust and pas-
sion and impure disease of soul, the members
of the body which tempt to obscenity, and even
the very uncontrol'' in shameful pleasure, they
described under the titles of Cupid, Pria-
3 pus, Venus,'' and other kindred terms. Nor
did they stop even here. Degrading their
thoughts of God to this corporeal and mortal
life, they deified their fellow-men, conferring the
names of gods and heroes on those who had
experienced the common lot of all, and vainly
imagining that the Divine and imperishable Es-
sence could frequent the tombs and monuments
of the dead. Nay, more than this : they paid
divine honors to animals of various species, and
to the most noxious reptiles : they felled trees,
and excavated rocks ; they provided themselves
with brass, and iron, and other metals, of which
they fashioned resemblances of the male and
female human form, of beasts, and creeping
things ; and these they made the objects of
4 their worship. Nor did this suffice. To
the evil spirits themselves which lurked
within their statues, or lay concealed in secret
and dark recesses, eager to drink their libations,
and inhale the odor of their sacrifices, they as-
cribed the same divine honors. Once more,
they endeavored to secure the familiar aid of
these spirits, and the unseen powers which move
through the tracts of air, by charms of forbidden
magic, and the compulsion of unhallowed songs
and incantations. Again, different nations have
adopted different persons as objects of their wor-
ship. The Greeks have rendered to Bacchus,
Hercules, ^'Esculapius, Apollo, and others who
were mortal men, the titles of gods and heroes.
The Egyptians have deified Horus and Isis, Osi-
ris, and other mortals such as these. And thus
they who boast of the wondrous skill whereby
they have discovered geometry, astronomy, and
the science of number, know not, wise as they
are in their own conceit, nor understand how to
estimate the measure of the power of God, or cal-
' " Of Demeter, of Cora, of Dionysius."
- " Athene . . . Hermes."
■^ The word used here, axpaTeia, is the opposite of the famous
philosophical word for self-control — eyxpaTeca.
* " Eros, Priapus, Aphrodite."
culate his exceeding greatness above the na-
ture of irrational and mortal beings. Hence 5
they shrank not from aj^plying the name of
gods to the most hideous of the brute creation,
to venomous reptiles and savage beasts. The
Phcenicians deified Melcatharus, Usorus,'' and
others ; mere mortals, and with little claim to
honor : the Arabians, Dusaris*"' and Obodas : the
Getre, Zamolxis : the Cicilians, Mopsus : and the
Thebans, Amphiaraus : " in short, each nation has
adopted its own peculiar deities, differing in no
respect from their fellow-mortals, being simply
and truly men. Again, the Egyptians with one
consent, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, nay, every
nation beneath the sun, have united in worshi])-
ing the very parts and elements of the world,
and even the produce of the ground itself.
And, which is most surprising, though acknowl-
edging the adulterous, unnatural, and licentious
crimes of their deities, they have not only filled
every city, and village, and district with tem-
ples, shrines, and statues in their honor, but
have followed their evil example to the ruin
of their own souls. We hear of gods and 6
the sons of gods described by them as
heroes and good genii, titles entirely opposed to
truth, honors utterly at variance with the (luali-
ties they are intended to exalt. It is as if one
who desired to point out the sun and the lumi-
naries of heaven, instead of directing his gaze
thitherward, should grope with his hands on the
ground, and search for the celestial powers in
the mud and mire. Even so mankind, deceived
by their own folly and the craft of evil spirits,
have believed that the Divine and spiritual Es-
sence which is far above heaven and earth could
be compatible with the birth, the affections, and
death, of mortal bodies here below. To such a
pitch of madness did they proceed, as to sacri-
fice the dearest objects of their affection to their
gods, regardless of all natural ties, and urged by
frenzied feeling to slay their only and best
beloved children. For what can be a 7
greater proof of madness, than to offer
human sacrifice, to pollute every city, and even
their own houses, with kindred blood ? Do not
the Greeks themselves attest this, and is not all
history filled with records of the same impiety?
The Phoenicians devoted their best beloved and
only children as an annual sacrifice to Saturn.
The Rhodians, on the sixth day of the month
Metageitnion,** offered human victims to the
same god. At Salamis, a man was pursued in
•'' It is probably that " Melkathros " and " Usous " referred to in
the I'rcep. Evang. i. lo (ed. Gaisford, Oxon. 1843, i. p. ^^ and 84).
The same passage may be found with English translation in Cory's
Ancient Fragments, Lond. 1832, p. 6-7, 13.
'' Dusaris was, it is said, equivalent to Bacchus.
" All the above names, excepting those specially noted, may be
found in .Smith, Diet, of Greek and Roman Biog. and Mytlicl.
* Corresponding nearly to our August. Key. Calendariuin, in
Smith, Diet. Gr. and R. A nt, p, 323,
6o2
CONSTANTINE.
the temple of Minerva Agraulis and Diomede,
compelled to run thrice round the altar, after-
wards pierced with a lance by the priest, and
consumed as a burnt offering on the blazing
pile. In Egypt, human sacrifice was most abun-
dant. At Heliopolis three victims were daily
offered to Juno, for whom king Amoses, im-
pressed with the atrocity of the practice, com-
manded the substitution of an ecjual number of
waxen figures. In (^hios, and again in Tenedos,
a man was slain and offered up to Omadian
Bacchus. At Sparta they immolated human
beings to Mars. In Crete they did likewise, offer-
ing human sacrifices to Saturn. In Laodicca of
Syria a virgin was yearly slain in honor of Min-
erva, for whom a hart is now the substitute.
The Libyans and Carthaginians aj^peased their
gods with human victims. The Dumateni of
Arabia buried a boy annually beneath the altar.
History informs us that the Greeks without
exception, the Thracians also, and Scythians,
were accustomed to human sacrifice before they
marched forth to battle. The Athenians record
the immolation of the virgin children of Leus,''
and the daughter of Erechtheus.'" Who knows
not that at this day a human victim is offered in
Rome itself at the festival of Jupiter Lati-
8 aris ? And these facts are confirmed by the
testimony of the most approved philoso-
phers. Diodorus, the epitomizer of libraries,"
affirms that two hundred of the noblest youths
were sacrificed to Saturn by the Libyan people,
and that three hundred more were voluntarily
offered by their own parents. Dionysius, the
compiler of Roman history,'- expressly says that
Jupiter and Apollo demanded human sacrifices
of the so-called Aborigines, in Italy. He relates
that on this demand they offered a proportion
of all their produce to the gods ; but that, be-
cause of their refusal to slay human victims, they
became involved in manifold calamities, from
which they could obtain no release until they
had decimated themselves, a sacrifice of life
which proved the desolation of their country.
Such and so great were the evils which of
9 old afflicted the whole human race. Nor
was this the full extent of their misery :
they groaned beneath the pressure of other evils
equally numerous and irremediable. All nations,
wliether civilized or barbarous, throughcjut the
world, as if actuated by a demoniac frenzy, were
infected with sedition as with some fierce and
» [Lcus is said to have offered his three daughters, Phasithca,
Thcopc, and Riibiilc; the oracle at Delphi haviiiK declared that tlie
relief of the city from famine conld only be effected by tlie shedding
of the blood of his daughters by one of the citizens. — /^rtV"-!
'" [Alluding to the sacrifice of his daughter Chthonia by Rrech-
theus, son of Pandion; the Athenians having been promised victory,
by the oracle, over the Elcusinians and their Thracian allies, on the
condition of the death of a daughter of Krcchtheus. — ^^'i^.]
" Diodorus Siculus, whose work is mentioned elsewhere {Prtpji.
Evaitg. I. 6, ed. Gaisford, p. 40) as a " historical library."
*- Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
terrible disease : insomuch that the human family
was irreconcilably divided against itself; the
great system of society was distracted and torn
asunder ; and in every corner of the earth men
stood opposed to each other, and strove with
fierce contention on questions of law and
government. Nay, more than this : with pas- 10
sions aroused to fury, they engaged in mutual
conflicts, so fre(][uent that their lives were passed
as it were in uninterrupted warfare. None could
undertake a journey except as prepared to
encounter an enemy : in the very country and
villages the rustics girded on the sword, pro-
vided themselves with armor rather than with
the implements of rural labor, and deemed it a
noble exploit to plunder and enslave any
who belonged to a neighboring state. Nay, 11
more than this : from the fables they had
themselves devised respecting their own deities,
they deduced occasions for a vile and abandonecl
life, and wrought the ruin of body and soul by
licentiousness of every kind. Not content with
this, they even overstepped the bounds which
nature had defined, and together committed in-
credible and nameless crimes, " men with men
(in the words of the sacred writer) working un-
seemliness, and receiving in themselves that
recompense of their error which was due."
Nor did they stop even here ; but per- 12
verted their natural thoughts of God, and
denied that the course of this world was directed
by his providential care, ascribing the existence
and constitution of all things to the blind oper-
ation of chance, or the necessity of fate.
Once more : believing that soul and body 13
were alike dissolved by death, they led a
brutish life, unworthy of the name : careless of
the nature or existence of the soul, they dreaded
not the tribunal of Divine justice, expected no
reward of virtue, nor thought of chastise-
ment as the penalty of an evil life. Hence 14
it was that whole nations, a prey to wicked-
ness in all its forms, were wasted by the effects
of their own brutality : some living in the prac-
tice of most vile and lawless incest with mothers,
others with sisters, and others again corrui)ting
their own daughters. Some were found who
slew their confiding guests ; others who fed on
human flesh ; some strangled, and then feasted
on, their aged men ; others threw them alive to
dogs. The time would fail me were I to attempt
to describe the multifarious symptoms of the
inveterate malady which had asserted its
dominion over the whole human race.
Such, and numberless others like these, 15
were the prevailing evils, on account of
which the gracious Word of God, full of com-
passion for his human flock, had long since, by
the ministry of his pro])hets, and earlier still, as
well as later, by that of men distinguished by
THE ORATION OF KUSEBIUS.
603
])ioiis devotion to God, invited those thus des-
jicrately afllirtcd to their own cure; and had,
liy means of laws, exhortations, and doctrines
of every kind, in'oclainietl to man the principles
and elements of true godliness. But when for
mankind, distracted and torn as I have said, not
indeed l)y wolves and savage l:)easts, but by ruth-
less and soul-destroying spirits of evil, human
power no longer sufficed, but a help was needed
superior to that of man ; then it was that the
'Word of (lod, obedient to his all-gracious
Father's will, at length himself appeared, and
most willingly made his abode amongst us.
16 The causes of his advent I have already de-
scribed, induced by which he condescended
to the society of man ; not in his wonted form
and manner, for he is incorporeal, and present
everywhere throughout the world, proving by
his agency both in heaven and earth the great-
ness of his almighty power, but in a character
new and hitherto unknown. Assuming a mortal
body, he deigned to associate and converse
with men ; desiring, through the medium of
their own likeness, to save our mortal race.
CHAPTER XIV.
1 And now let us explain the cause for which
the incorporeal Word of God assumed this
mortal body as a medium of intercourse with
man. How, indeed, else than in human form,
could that Divine and impalpable, that imma-
terial and invisible Essence manifest itself to
those who sought for God in created and earthly
objects, unable or unwilling otherwise to dis-
cern the Author and Maker of all things ?
2 As a fitting means, therefore, of communi-
cation with mankind, he assumed a mortal
body, as that with which they were themselves
familiar ; for like, it is proverbially said, loves
its like. To those, then, whose affections were
engaged by visible objects, who looked for gods
in statues and lifeless images, who imagined the
Deity to consist in material and corporeal sub-
stance, nay, who conferred on men the title of
divinity, the Word of God presented him-
3 self in this form. Hence he procured for
himself this body as a thrice-hallowed tem-
ple, a sensible habitation of an intellectual power ;
a noble and most holy form, of far higher worth
than any lifeless statue. The material and sense-
less image, fashioned by base mechanic hands,
of brass or iron, of gold or ivory, wood or stone,
may be a fitting abode for evil spirits : but that
Divine form, wrought by the power of heavenly
wisdom, was possessed of life and spiritual
being ; a form animated by every excellence,
the dwelling-place of the Word of God,
4 a holy temple of the holy God. Thus
the indwelling Word^ conversed with and was
known to men, as kindred with themselves ;
yet yielded not to passions such as theirs, nor
owned, as the natural soul, subjection to the
body. I le parted not with aught of his intrin-
sic greatness, nor changed his proper Deity.
For as the all-pervading radiance of the sun
receives no stain from contact with dead and
impure bodies ; much less can the incorporeal
power of the Word of God be injured in its
essential purity, or part with any of its greatness,
from s]")iritual contact with a human body.
Thus, I say, did our common Saviour prove 5
himself the beneflictor and preserver of all,
displaying his wisdom through the instrumen-
tality of his human nature, even as a musician
uses the lyre to evince his skill. The Grecian
myth tells us that Orpheus had power to charm
ferocious beasts, and tame their savage spirit,
by striking the chords of his instrument with a
master hand : and this story is celebrated by
the Greeks, and generally believed, that an un-
conscious instrument could subdue the untamed
brute, and draw the trees from their places,
in obedience to its melodious power. But he
who is the author of perfect harmony, the all-
wise Word of God, desiring to apply every
remedy to the manifold diseases of the souls
of men, employed that human nature which is
the workmanship of his own wisdom, as an
instrument by the melodious strains of which
he soothed, not indeed the brute creation, but
savages endued with reason ; healing each furi-
ous temper, each fierce and angry passion of
the soul, both in civilized and barbarous nations,
by the remedial power of his Divine doctrine.
Like a physician of perfect skill, he met the
diseases of their souls who sought for God in
nature and in bodies, by a fitting and kindred
remedy, and showed them God in human
form. And then, wath no less care for the 6
body than the soul, he presented before
the eyes of men wonders and signs, as proofs
of his Divine power, at the same time instilling
into their ears of flesh the doctrines which he
himself uttered with a corporeal tongue. In
short, he performed all his works through the
medium of that botly which he had assumed for
the sake of those who else were incapable
of apprehending his Divine nature. In all 7
this he was the servant of his Father's
will, himself remaining still the same as when
with the Father ; unchanged in essence, unim-
paired in nature, unfettered by the trammels of
mortal flesh, nor hindered by his abode in a
human body from being elsewhere present.-
1 All these various conceptions of the Word are strictly Biblical:
(i) The Word the only revealer of the Father, who otherwise could
not be known; (2) The human body the temple of God; (3) The
indwelling Word.
- This ought to relieve Eusebius from any charge of Arianism in
6o4
CONSTANTINE.
8 Nay, at the very time of his intercourse
with men, he was pervading all things, was
with and in the Father, and even then was car-
ing for all things both in heaven and earth.
Nor was he precluded, as we are, from being
present everywhere, or from the continued exer-
cise of his l3ivine power. He gave of his own
to man, but received nothing in return : he
imparted of his Divine power to mortality, but
derived no accession from mortality itself.
9 Hence his human birth to him brought no
defilement ; nor could his impassible Es-
sence suffer at the dissolution of his mortal
body. For let us suppose a lyre to receive an
accidental injury, or its chord to be broken ; it
does not follow that the performer on it suffers :
nor, if a wise man's body undergo punishment,
can we fairly assert that his wisdom, or the
soul within him, are maimed or burned.
10 Far less can we affirm that the inherent
power of the Word sustained any detriment
from his bodily passion, any more than, as in
the instance we have already used, the solar
rays which are shot from heaven to earth con-
tract defilement, though in contact with mire
and pollution of every kind. ^Ve may, indeed,
assert that these things partake of the radiance
of the light, but not that the light is contami-
nated, or the sun defiled, by this contact
11 with other bodies. And indeed these things
are themselves not contrary to nature ; but
the Saviour, the incorporeal ^Vord of Ciod, being
Life and spiritual Light itself, whatever he touches
with Divine and incorporeal power must of ne-
cessity become endued with the intelligence of
light and life. Thus, if he touch a body, it be-
comes enlightened and sanctified, is at once
delivered from all disease, infirmity, and suffer-
ing, and that which before was lacking is
12 supplied by a portion of his fullness. And
such was the tenor of his life on earth ; now
proving the sympathies of his human nature with
our own, and now revealing himself as the ^Vord
of God : wondrous and mighty in his works as
God ; foretelling the events of the far distant
fiiture ; declaring in every act, by signs, and
wonders, and supernatural powers, that ^Vord
whose presence was so little known ; and finally,
by his Divine teaching, inviting the souls of men
to prepare for those mansions which are above
the heavens.
CHAl^ER XV.
1 What now remains, but to account for
those which are the crowning facts of all ;
I mean his death, so far and widely known, the
this relation, however " dangerous " the ground he has trodden on
may be.
manner of his passion, and the mighty miracle
of his resurrection after death : and then to es-
tablish the truth of these events by the clearest
testimonies? For the reasons detailed
above he used the instrumentality of a 2
mortal body, as a figure becoming his
Divine majesty, and like a mighty sovereign
employed it as his interpreter in his intercourse
with men, performing all things consistently
with his own Divine power. Supposing, then,
at the end of his sojourn among men, he had
by any other means suddenly withdrawn himself
from their sight, and, secretly removing that in-
terpreter of himself, the form which he had
assumed, had hastened to flee from death, and
afterwards by his own act had consigned his
mortal body to corruption and dissolution :
doubtless in such a case he would have been
deemed a mere phantom by all. Nor would
he have acted in a manner worthy of himself,
had he who is Life, the Word, and the Power of
God, abandoned this interpreter of himself
to corruption and death. Nor, again, would 3
his warfare with the spirits of evil have re-
ceived its consummation by conflict with the
power of death. The place of his retirement
must have remained unknown ; nor would his
existence have been believed by those who had
not seen him for themselves. No proof would
have been given that he was superior to death ;
nor would he have delivered mortality from
the law of its natural infirmity. His name
had never been heard throughout the world ;
nor could he have inspired his disciples with
contempt of death, or encouraged those who
embraced his doctrine to hope for the enjoy-
ment of a future life with God. Nor would he
have fulfilled the assurances of his own prom-
ise, nor have accomplished the predictions of
the prophets concerning himself. Nor would
he have imdergone the last conflict of all ; for
this was to be the struggle with the power
of death. For all these reasons, then, and 4
inasmuch as it was necessary that the mortal
body which had rendered such service to the
Divine A\'ord should meet with an end worthy
its sacred occupant, the manner of his death
was ordained accordingly. For since but two
alternatives remained : either to consign his body
entirely to corruption, and so to bring the scene
of life to a dishonored close, or else to prove
himself victorious over death, and render mor-
tality immortal by the act of l)ivine power; the
former of these alternatives would have con-
travened his own promise. For as it is not the
property of fire to cool, nor of light to darken,
no more is it compatible with life, to deprive of
life, or with Divine intelligence, to act in a man-
ner contrary to reason. For how would it be
consistent,with reason, that he who had promised
THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
605
life to others, should permit his own body, the
form which he had chosen, to perish beneath
the power of corruption? That he who had
inspired his disciples with hopes of immortality,
should yield this exponent of his Divine
5 counsels to be destroyed by death? The
second alternative was therefore needful :
I msan, that he should assert his dominion
over the power of death. But how? should this
be a furtive and secret act, or openly performed
and in the sight of all? So mighty an achieve-
ment, had it remained unknown and unrevealed,
must hive failed of its effect as regards the inter-
ests of men ; whereas the same event, if openly
declared and understood, would, from its won-
drous character, redound to the common benefit
of all. With reason, therefore, since it was
needful to prove his body victorious over death,
and that not secretly but before the eyes of men,
he shrank not from the trial, for this indeed
would have argued fear, and a sense of inferiority
to the i)ower of death, but maintained that con-
flict with the enemy which has rendered mortal-
ity immortal ; a conflict undertaken for the
life, the immortality, the salvation of all.
6 Suppose one desired to show us that a ves-
sel could resist the force of fire ; how could
he better prove the fact than by casting it into
the furnace and thence withdrawing it entire and
unconsumed? Even thus the Word of God,
who is the source of life to all, desiring to prove
the triumph of that body over death which he
had assumed for man's salvation, and to make
this body partake his own life and immortality,
pursued a course consistent with this object.
Leaving his body for a little while,^ and deliver-
ing it up to death in proof of its mortal nature,
he soon redeemed it from death, in vindication
of that Divine power whereby he has manifested
the immortality which he has promised to
7 be utterly beyond the sphere of death. The
reason of this is clear. It was needful that
his disciples should receive ocular proof of the
certainty of that resurrection on which he had
taught them to rest their hopes as a motive for
rising superior to the fear of death. It was
indeed most needful that they who purposed to
pursue a life of godliness should receive a clear
impression of this essential truth : more needful
still for those who were destined to declare his
name in all the world, and to communicate to
mankind that knowledge of God which he
8 had before ordained for all nations. For
such the strongest conviction of a future life
was necessary, that they might be able with
fearless and unshrinking zeal to maintain the
conflict with Gentile and polytheistic error : a
conflict the dangers of which they would never
1 [These words (as Valesius observes) need not be too rigidly in-
terpreted. — Sag.]
have been prepared to meet, except as habit-
uated to the contempt of death. Accordingly,
in arming his disciples against the power of this
last enemy, he delivered not his doctrines in
mere verbal precepts, nor attempted to prove
the soul's immortality, by persuasive and prob-
able arguments ; but displayed to them in his
own person a real victory over death. Such 9
was the first and greatest reason of our
Saviour's conflict with the power of death, where-
by he proved to his disciples the nothingness of
that which is the terror of all mankind, and
afforded a visible evidence of the reality of that
life which he had promised ; presenting as it
were a first-fruit of our common hope, of future
life and immortality in the presence of God.
The second cause of his resurrection was, 10
that the Divine power might be manifested
which dwelt in his mortal body. Mankind had
heretofore conferred Divine honors on men who
had yielded to the power of death, and had
given the titles of gods and heroes to mortals
like themselves. For this reason, therefore, the
Word of God evinced his gracious character,
and proved to man his own superiority over
death, recalling his mortal body to a second life,
displaying an immortal triumph over death in
the eyes of all, and teaching them to acknowledge
the Author of such a victory to be the only
true God, even in death itself. I may 11
allege yet a third cause of the Saviour's
death. He was the victim offered to the Supreme
Sovereign of the universe for the whole human
race : a victim consecrated for the need of the
human race, and for the overthrow of the errors
of demon worship. For as soon as the one holy
and mighty sacrifice, the sacred body of our
Saviour, had been slain for man, to be as a
ransom for all nations, heretofore involved in
the guilt of impious superstition, thenceforward
the power of impure and unholy spirits was
utterly abolished, and every earth-born and
delusive error was at once weakened and
destroyed. Thus, then, this salutary victim 12
taken from among themselves, I mean the
mortal body of the Word, was offered on behalf
of the common race of men. This was that
sacrifice delivered up to death, of which the sa-
cred oracles speak : " Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world." ' And
again, as follows : " He was led as a sheep to
the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer
is dumb." They declare also the cause, saying :
" He bears our sins, and is pained for us : yet
we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffer-
ing, and in affliction. But he was wounded on
account of our sins, and bruised because of our
iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was
I - John i. 29.
6o6
CONSTANTINE.
upon him ; and by his bruises we were healed.
All we as sheep have gone astray ; every one
has gone astray in this way ; and the Lord gave
him up for our sins." ^
13 Such were the causes which led to the
offering of the human body of the Word of
God. But forasmuch as he was the great high
priest, consecrated to the Supreme Lord and
King, and therefore more than a victim, the
Word, the Power, and the Wisdom of God ;
he soon recalled his body from the grasp of
death, presented it to his Father as the first-fruit
of our common salvation, and raised this trophy,
a proof at once of his victory over death and
Satan, and of the abolition of human sacrifices,
for the blessing of all mankind.
CHAPTER XVL
1 And now the time is come for us to pro-
ceed to the demonstration of these things ;
if indeed such truths require demonstration, and
if the aid of testimony be needful to confirm the
certainty of palpable facts. Such testimony,
however, shall be here given ; and let it be
received with an attentive and gracious ear.
2 Of old the nations of the earth, the entire
human race, were variously distributed into
provincial, national, and local governments,^
subject to kingdoms and principalities of many
kinds. The consequences of this variety were
war and strife, depopulation and captivity, which
raged in country and city with unceasing fury.
Hence, too, the countless subjects of history,
adulteries, and rapes of women ; hence the woes
of Troy, and the ancient tragedies, so known
3 among all peoples. The origin of these
may justly be ascribed to the delusion of
polytheistic error. But when that instrument of
our redemption, the thrice holy body of Christ,
which proved itself superior to all Satanic fraud,
and free from evil both in word and deed, was
raised, at once for the abolition of ancient evils,
and in token of his victory over the powers of
darkness ; the energy of these evil spirits was at
once destroyed. The manifold forms of gov-
ernment, the tyrannies and republics, the siege
of cities, and devastation of countries caused
thereby, were now no more, and one God
4 was proclaimed to all mankind. At the
same time one universal power, the Roman
empire, arose and flourished, while the enduring
and implacable hatred of nation against nation
was now removed : and as the knowledge of
3 [Isaiah liii. 4, 5, 6, 7. Scptiiagint, English translation, p. 728.
— Bag.\ P. 889 of the l)agsler cd., 1879. Though the first reasons
make one feel as if the author had been in danger of slighting the
atoning work of the Word, he here very clearly comes up, as usual,
to the Biblical position.
' Eparchies, ethnarchies, and toparchies.
one God, and one way of religion and salvation,
even the doctrine of Christ, was made known to
all mankind ; so at the self-same period, the
entire dominion of the Roman empire being
vested in a single sovereign, profound peace
reigned throughout the world. And thus, by
the express appointment of the same God, two
roots of blessing, the Roman empire, and the
doctrine of Christian piety, sprang up to-
gether for the benefit of men. For before 5
this time the various countries of the world,
as Syria, Asia, Macedonia, Egypt, and Arabia,
had been severally subject to different rulers.
The Jewish people, again, had established their
dominion in the land of Palestine. And these
nations, in every village, city, and district, actu-
ated by some insane spirit, were engaged in
incessant and murderous war and conflict. But
two mighty powers, starting from the same point,
the Roman empire, which henceforth was
swayed by a single sovereign, and the Chris-
tian religion, subdued and reconciled these
contending elements. Our Saviour's mighty 6
power destroyed at once the many govern-
ments and the many gods of the powers of
darkness, and proclaimed to all men, both rude
and civilized, to the extremities of the earth, the
sole sovereignty of God himself. Meantime
the Roman empire, the causes of multiplied
governments being thus removed, effected an
easy conquest of those which yet remained ; its
object being to unite all nations in one harmo-
nious whole ; an object in great measure already
secured, and destined to be still more perfectly
attained, even to the final conquest of the ends
of the habitable world, by means of the salutary
doctrine, and through the aid of that Divine
power which facilitates and smooths its way.
And surely this must appear a wondrous 7
fact to those who will examine the question
in the love of truth, and desire not to cavil at
these blessings.^ The falsehood of demon super-
stition was convicted : the inveterate strife and
mutual hatred of the nations was removed : at
the same time One God, and the knowledge of
that God, were proclaimed to all : one universal
empire prevailed ; and the whole human race,
subdued by the controlling power of peace and
concord, received one another as brethren, and
responded to the feelings of their common
nature. Hence, as children of one God and
Father, and owning true religion as their com-
mon mother, they saluted and welcomed each
other with words of peace. Thus the whole
world appeared like one well-ordered and united
family : each one might journey unhindered as
far as and whithersoever he pleased : men might
= This is a fair appeal, applicable to his present hearers. It at
least was true of Constantine's reign, that it produced a state of rela-
tive peace and prosperity.
THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
607
securely travel from West to East, and from
East to West, as to their own native country : in
short, the ancient oracles and predictions of the
prophets were fulfilled, more numerous than we
can at present cite, and those especially which
speak as follows concerning the saving Word.
" He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and
from the river to the ends of the earth." And
again, " In his days shall righteousness spring
up ; and abundance of peace." " And they
shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and
their spears into sickles : and nation shall not
take up sword against nation, neither shall
8 they learn to war any more.'"^ These
words, predicted ages before in the Hebrew
tongue, have received in our own day a visible
fulfillment, by which the testimonies of the
ancient oracles are clearly confirmed. And
now, if thou still desire more ample proof, re-
ceive it, not in words, but from the facts them-
selves. Open the eyes of thine understanding ;
expand the gates of thought ; pause awhile, and
consider ; inquire of thyself as though thou
wert another, and thus diligently examine the
nature of the case. What king or prince in any
age of the world, what philosopher, legislator,
or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has
attained so great a height of excellence, I say
not after death, but while living still, and full
of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues
of all mankind with the praises of his name?
Surely none save our only Saviour has done
this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke
the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the
event, saying to them, " Go ye, and make disci-
ples of all nations in my name."* He it was
who gave the distinct assurance, that his gospel
must be preached in all the world for a testi-
mony to all nations, and immediately verified
his word : for within a little time the world
9 itself was filled with his doctrine. How,
then, will those who caviled at the com-
mencement of my speech be able to reply to
this ? For surely the force of ocular testimony
is superior to any verbal argument. Who else
than he, with an invisible and yet potent hand,
has driven from human society like savage
beasts that ever noxious and destructive tribe
of evil spirits who of old had made all nations
their prey, and by the motions of their images
had practiced many a delusion among men ?
Who else, beside our Saviour, by the invocation
of his name, and by unfeigned prayer addressed
through him to the Supreme God, has given
power to banish from the world the remnant of
^ [Psalm Ixxi. 7, 8; Isaiah ii. 4. Septuagint. — 5a^.] Psalm
Ixxii., English version.
* Matt, xxviii. 19. There is an interesting various reading here,
where Eusebius, with B. as against Aleph, adds something; but
where B. and others have oui', and D. and others have fvf, liuse-
bius has your.
those wicked spirits to those who with genuine
and sincere obedience pursue the course of life
and conduct which he has himself prescribed?
\Vho else but our Saviour has taught his fol-
lowers to offer those bloodless and reasonable
sacrifices which are performed by prayer
and the secret worship of God? Hence is 10
it that throughout the habitable world altars
are erected, and churches dedicated, wherein
these spiritual and rational sacrifices are offered
as a sacred service by every nation to the One
Supreme God. Once more, who but he, with
invisible and secret power, has suppressed and
utterly abolished those bloody sacrifices which
were offered with fire and smoke, as well as the
cruel and senseless immolation of human vic-
tims ; a fact which is attested by the heathen
historians themselves ? For it was not till after
the publication of the Saviour's Divine doctrine,
about the time of Hadrian's reign, that the
practice of human sacrifice was universally
abandoned. Such and so manifest are the 11
proofs of our Saviour's power and energy
after death. Who then can be found of spirit
so obdurate as to withhold his assent to the
truth, and refuse to acknowledge his life to be
Divine? Such deeds as I have described are
done by the living, not the dead ; and visible
acts are to us as evidence of those which we
cannot see. It is as it were an event of yester-
day that an impious and godless race disturbed
and confounded the peace of human society,
and possessed mighty power. But these, as
soon as life departed, lay prostrate on the earth,
worthless as dung, breathless, motionless, bereft
of speech, and have left neither fame nor
memorial behind. For such is the condition
of the dead ; and he who no longer lives is
nothing : and how can he who is nothing be
capable of any act? But how shall his existence
be called in question, whose active power and
energy are greater than in those who are still
alive? And though he be invisible to the
natural eye, yet the discerning faculty is not in
outward sense. ^Ve do not comprehend the
rules of art, or the theories of science, by bodily
sensation ; nor has any eye yet discerned the
mind of man. Far less, then, the power of
God : and in such cases our judgment is
formed from apparent results. Even thus 12
are we bound to judge of our Saviour's in-
visible power, and decide by its manifest effects
whether we shall acknowledge the mighty opera-
tions which he is even now carrying on to be
the works of a living agent ; or whether they
shall be ascribed to one who has no existence ;
or, lastly, whether the inquiry be not absurd and
inconsistent in itself. For with what reason can
we assert the existence of one who is not?
Since all allow that that which has no existence
6o8
CONSTANTINE.
is devoid of that power, and energy, and action,
for these are characteristics of the Uving, but
the contrary is characteristic of the dead.
CHAPTER XVII.
1 And now the time is come for us to con-
sider the works of our Saviour in our own
age, and to contemplate the hving operations
of the hving God. For how shall we describe
these mighty works save as living proofs of the
power of a living agent, who truly enjoys the
life of God? If any one inquire the nature
2 of these works, let him now attend. But
recently a class of persons, impelled by
furious zeal, and backed by equal power and
military force, evinced their enmity against God,
by destroying his churches, and overthrowing
from their foundations the buildings dedicated
to his worship. In short, in every way they
directed their attacks against the unseen God,
and assailed him with a thousand shafts of
impious words. But he who is invisible
3 avenged himself with an invisible hand. By
the single fiat of his will his enemies were
utterly destroyed, they who a litde while before
had been flourishing in great prosperity, exalted
by their fellow men as worthy of divine honor,
and blessed with a continued period of power
and glory,^ so long as they had maintained
peace and amity with him whom they afterwards
opposed. As soon, however, as they dared
openly to resist his will, and to set their gods
in array against him whom we adore ; immedi-
ately, according to the will and power of that
God against whom their arms were raised, they
all received the judgment due to their audacious
deeds. Constrained to yield and flee before
his power, together they acknowledged his
Divine nature, and hastened to reverse the
measures which they had before essayed.
4 Our Saviour, therefore, without delay erected
trophies of this victory everywhere, and
once more adorned the world with holy temples
and consecrated houses of prayer; in every
city and village, nay, throughout all countries,
and even in barbaric wilds, ordaining the erec-
tion of churches and sacred buildings to the
honor of the Supreme God and Lord of all.
Hence it is that these hallowed edifices are
deemed worthy to bear his name, and receive
not their appellation from men, but from the
Lord himself, from which circumstances they
are called churches (or houses of the
5 Lord).- And now let him who will stand
forth and tell us who, after so complete a
desolation, has restored these sacred buildings
from foundation to roof? Who, when all hope
appeared extinct, has caused them to rise on a
nobler scale than heretofore ? And well may it
claim our wonder, that this renovation was not
subsequent to the death of those adversaries of
God, but whilst the destroyers of these edifices
were still alive ; so that the recantation of their
evil deeds came in their own words and edicts."
And this they did, not in the sunshine of pros-
perity and ease (for then we might suppose that
benevolence or clemency might be the cause),
but at the very time that they were suffering
under the stroke of Divine vengeance.
Who, again, has been able to retain in 6
obedience to his heavenly precepts, after
so many successive storms of persecution, nay,
in the very crisis of danger, so many persons
throughout the world devoted to philosophy,
and the service of God and those holy choirs
of virgins who had dedicated themselves to a
life of perpetual chastity and purity? Who
taught them cheerfully to persevere in the exer-
cise of protracted fasting, and to embrace a life
of severe and consistent self-denial ? Who has
persuaded multitudes of either sex to devote
themselves to the study of sacred things, and
prefer to bodily nutriment that intellectual food
which is suited to the wants of a rational soul?*
Who has instructed barbarians and peasants,
yea, feeble women, slaves, and children, in
short, unnumbered multitudes of all nations, to
live in the contempt of death ; persuaded of
the immortality of their souls, conscious that
human actions are observed by the unerring eye
of justice, expecting God's award to the right-
eous and the wicked, and therefore true to the
practice of a just and virtuous life? For they
could not otherwise have persevered in the
course of godliness. Surely these are the acts
which our Saviour, and he alone, even now per-
forms. And now let us pass from these
topics, and endeavor by inquiries such as 7
these that follow to convince the objector's
obdurate understanding. Come for^vard, then,
whoever thou art, and speak the words of reason :
utter, not the thoughts of a senseless heart, but
those of an intelligent and enlightened mind :
speak, I say, after deep solemn converse with
thyself. Who of the sages whose names have
yet been known to fame, has ever been fore-
known and proclaimed from the remotest ages,
as our Saviour was by the prophetic oracles to
the once divinely-favored Hebrew nation? But
' [Referring to Diocletian, and others of the persecuting em-
perors.— iiig"-]
2 [KvpiaxCn' ^ftiocTat Ta>i' eirvDi'vixiCoi'. The German " Kirchc,"
the Scotch " Kirk," and tlic KnKlish "Church" are said, probably
enough, to derive their origin from this Greek word. — Ba^:]
3 Compare literature on the edicts of toleration.
•• [There is nothing which need surprise us in the praises of vir-
ginity, monkery, and ascetii ism, in a writer of the fourth century.
The intelligent Christian will surely shrink from the thought of
ascribing, with Knsebius, these fruitful sources of corruption to the
Lord himself. — Bag: ]
THE ORATION OF EUSEBIUS.
609
his very birth-place, the period of his advent,
the manner of his Hfe, his miracles, and words,
and mighty acts, were anticipated and recorded
in the sacred volumes of these prophets.
8 Again, who so present an avenger of crimes
against himself; so that, as the immediate
consequence of their impiety, the entire Jewish
people were scattered by an unseen power, their
royal seat utterly removed, and their very
temple with its holy things levelled with the
ground? Who, like our Saviour, has uttered
l)redictions at once concerning that impious
nation and the establishment of his church
throughout the world, and has ecpially verified
both by the event? Respecting the temple of
these wicked men, our Saviour said : " Your
house is left unto you desolate " :^ and, "There
shall not be left one stone upon another in this
place, that shall not be thrown down."" And
again, of his church he says : " I will build my
church upon a rock, and the gates of hell
9 shall not prevail against it."' How won-
drous, too, must that power be deemed
which summoned obscure and unlettered men
from their fisher's trade, and made them the
legislators and instructors of the human race !
And how clear a demonstration of his deity do
we find in the promise so well performed, that
he would make them fishers of men : in the
power and energy which he bestowed, so that
they composed and published writings of such
authority that they were translated into every
civilized and barbarous language,*^ were read
and pondered by all nations, and the doc-
10 trines contained in them accredited as the
oracles of God ! How marvelous his pre-
dictions of the future, and the testimony whereby
his disciples were forewarned that they should
be brought before kings and rulers, and should
endure the severest punishments, not indeed as
criminals, but simply for their confession of his
name ! Or who shall adequately describe the
power with which he prepared them thus to
suffer with a willing mind, and enabled them,
strong in the armor of godliness, to maintain a
constancy of spirit indomitable in the midst
11 of conflict? Or how shall we enough
admire that steadfast firmness of soul which
strengthened, not merely his immediate followers,
but their successors also, even to our present
age, in the joyful endurance of every infliction,
and every form of torture, in proof of their
devotion to the Supreme God? Again, what
monarch has prolonged his government through
so vast a series of ages ? Who else has power
" Matt, xxiii. 38.
^ Matt. xxiv. 2, — apparently a paraphrase from memory.
' Matt. xvi. 18.
8 The Syriac, Peschito, and possibly the Curetonian, the old
Latin (Itala), probably both the Thebaic and Memphitic Coptic
versions, at least, had been made at this time.
to make war after death, to triumph over every
enemy, to subjugate each barbarous and civil-
ized nation and city, and to subdue his adver-
saries with an invisible and secret hand?
Lastly, and chief of all, what slanderous 12
lip shall dare to question that universal
peace to which we have already referred,
established by his power throughout the world ?^
For thus the mutual concord and harmony of
all nations coincided in point of time with the
extension of our Saviour's doctrine and preach-
ing in all the world : a concurrence of events
predicted in long ages past by the prophets of
God. The day itself would fail me, gracious
emperor, should I attempt to exhibit in a single
view those cogent proofs of our Saviour's
Divine power which even now are visible in
their effects ; for no human being, in civilized
or barbarous nations, has ever yet exhibited
such power of Divine virtue as our Saviour.
But why do I speak of men, since of the 13
beings whom all nations have deemed divine,
none has appeared on earth with power like to
his ? If there has, let the fact now be proved.
Come forward, ye philosophers, and tell us what
god or hero has yet been known to fame, who
has delivered the doctrines of eternal life and a
heavenly kingdom as he has done who is our
Saviour? Who, like him, has persuaded multi-
tudes throughout the world to pursue the prin-
ciples of Divine wisdom, to fix their hope on
heaven itself, and look forward to the mansions
there reserved for them that love God ? What
god or hero in human form has ever held his
course from the rising to the setting sun, a
course co-extensive as it were with the solar
light, and irradiated mankind with the bright
and glorious beams of his doctrine, causing
each nation of the earth to render united wor-
ship to the One true God ? What god or hero
yet, as he has done, has set aside all gods and
heroes among civilized or barbarous nations ;
has ordained that divine honors should be with-
held from all, and claimed obedience to that
command : and then, though singly conflicting
with the power of all, has utterly destroyed the
opposing hosts ; victorious over the gods and
heroes of every age, and causing himself alone,
in every region of the habitable world, to be
acknowledged by all people as the only Son
of God? Who else has commanded the 14
nations inhabiting the continents and islands
of this mighty globe to assemble weekly on the
Lord's day, and to observe it as a festival, not
indeed for the pampering of the body, but for
the invigoration of the soul by instruction in
Divine truth? What god or hero, exposed, as
our Saviour was, to so sore a conflict, has raised
'■> [The peace which Christ, at his birth, bestowed on the Roman
world (Valesius). — Sa^-.]
VOL. I.
R r
6io
CONSTANTINE.
the trophy of victory over every foe ? For they
indeed, from first to last, unceasingly assailed
his doctrine and his people : but he who is
invisible, by the exercise of a secret power, has
raised his servants and the sacred houses of their
worship to the height of glory.
But why should we still vainly aim at detail-
ing those Divine proofs of our Saviour's power
which no language can worthily express ; which
need indeed no words of ours, but themselves
appeal in loudest tones to those whose mental
ears are open to the truth? Surely it is a
strange, a wondrous fact, unparalleled in the
annals of human life ; that the blessings we have
described should be accorded to our mortal
race, and that he who is in truth the only, the
eternal Son of God, should thus be visible on
earth.
CHAPTER XVIII.
These words of ours, however, [gracious]
Sovereign, may well appear superfluous in your
ears, convinced as you are, by frequent and per-
sonal experience, of our Saviour's Deity ; your-
self also, in actions still more than words, a her-
ald of the truth to all mankind. Yourself, it may
be, will vouchsafe at a time of leisure to relate to
us the abundant manifestations which your Sav-
iour has accorded you of his presence, and the
oft-repeated visions of himself which have at-
tended you in the hours of sleep. I speak not
of those secret suggestions which to us are un-
revealed : but of those principles which he has
instilled into your own mind, and which are
fraught with general interest and benefit to the
human race. You will yourself relate in worthy
terms the visible protection which your Divine
shield and guardian has extended in the hour of
battle ; the ruin of your open and secret foes ;
and his ready aid in time of peril. 1 o him you
will ascribe relief in the midst of perplexity ;
defence in solitude ; expedients in extremity ;
foreknowledge of events yet future ; your fore-
thought for the general weal ; your power to in-
vestigate uncertain questions ; your conduct of
most important enterprises ; your administra-
tion of civil affairs ; ^ your military arrangements,
and correction of abuses in all departments ;
your ordinances respecting public right ; and,
lastly, your legislation for the common benefit
of all. You will, it may be, also detail to us
those particulars of his favor which are secret to
us, but known to you alone, and treasured in
your royal memory as in secret storehouses.
Such, doubtless, are the reasons, and such the
convincing proofs of your Saviour's power, which
caused you to raise that sacred edifice which
presents to all, believers and unbelievers alike,
a trophy of his victory over death, a holy temple
of the holy God : to consecrate those noble and
splendid monuments of immortal life and his
heavenly kingdom : to offer memorials of our
Almighty Saviour's conquest which well become
the imperial dignity of him by whom they are
bestowed. With such memorials have you
adorned that edifice which witnesses of eternal
life : thus, as it were in imperial characters, as-
cribing victory and triumph to the heavenly
Word of God : thus proclaiming to all nations,
with clear and unmistakable voice, in deed and
word, your own devout and pious confession of
his name.
' Literally, " Your political economies."
INDEXES,
i< r 2
INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
REFERRED TO IN THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
Gen. 1. 26 ... . 82
Ps. xxxiii. 16-19 •
366
Isa. xlix. 18-21 . . 376
Matt. xix. 21* . . .
169
ii. 13* .
306
xxxiii. 17.
371
Ii. 17, 18 . .
376
xix. 23* . . .
284
xii. 3 . .
88
xxxiii. 23, 24 . .
371
Ii. 22, 23 .
376
>ix. 28* . . .
376
xiv. 18*
86
xxxvii. 14, 15 . .
374
Iii. I, 2
376
xxii. II*. . .
216
XV. 6 . .
88
xxxvii. 35, 36. .
369
liii. 8 . .
82
xxii. 16* . . .
126
xviii. I s</*
83
xliv. I . . . .
371
liv. 4 . .
376
xxiii. 34* . .
232
xviii. 18
SS
Xlv. 2 . . , .
371
liv. 6-8 .
376
xxiv. 19-21
141
xviii. 25
83
xlv. 6, 7 . . .
86
liv. 11-14 .
377
xxiv. 24 . 28
4, 361
xix. 24 .
83
xlvi. 8, 9 . . .
369
Ixi. I . .
86
xxvi. 64* . .
126
xxxii. 28
83
xlviii. I . . , .
371
Ixi. 10, II .
376
xxviii. 19*
138
xxxii. 30
83
xlviii. 8 . . .
371
Ixv. 15, 16
87
Mark i. 14 . . .
153
xlix. 10 .
89
Iviii. 6 . . . .
374
Ixvi. 3, 4 .
299
iii. 14-19* . <
?7, 98
Ex. iii. 4-6 .
83
Ixxiii. 20 . . .
374
Ixvi. 8 . .
87
iv. 12* . . . .
lOI
vi. 6 iT/ a/.*
371
Ixxiv. 5, 6 . . .
374
Jer. v. 21* .
lOI
vi. 17 stj* . .
97
vii. 21*
306
Ixxiv. 7 . . . .
374
xxxv.* .
126
xiv. 62* . . ,
126
xii. 30 .
306
Ixxx. 12, 13 . .
374
Lam. ii. i, 2
324
XV. II* . . .
142
XV. I
364
Ixxxvii. 3 . . ,
371
Ezek. xii. 2*
lOI
Luke i. 1-4* . .
154
XV. 4, 5
363
Ixxxix. 39-45 . .
324
xiii. 3 .
299
i. 2, 3* . . .
136
XV. 5 .
363
xcvi. I* . . .
371
xxxiii. II* .
216
i. 6 . . . .
212
XV. 10 .
364
xcviii. I, 2 . .
369
xxxvii. 7 .
370
i. 53, 53* • .
371
XV. 11 .
364
ciii. 3-5 .. .
378
Dan. ii. 21 .
371
i.67 ...
213
xvii. 6 .
306
ciii. 10 ... .
378
vii. 9, 10
85
ii. 2* . . .
88
XX. 3 .
331
ciii. 12, 13 . .
378
vii. 13, 14 .
85
iii. I* . . .
96
XX. 5 .
299
civ. 16 ... .
375
ix. 26* .
90
iii. 2* . . .
96
xxii. 20
331
cv. 15 . . . .
87
ix. 27* . .
138
iii. 20 ■ . . .
»53
XXV. 40 , .
85
cvii. 20 . . . .
83
Mic. V. 2* .
88, 94
vi. 13-16*
97. 98
XXXV. 30 S(/
.*
370
cvii. 40 . . .
324
Hag. ii.9 .37
I,*
375. 376
X. I* ...
97
XXXV. 31
373
ex. I . . . .
86
Tobit xii. 7 .
. 299
X. 1-20* . .
98
Lev. iv, 5, 16*
85
ex. 4 ...
86
Ecclus. XXV.*
315
xix. 20 . . .
141
vi. 22* .
85
exiii. 7 . . .
371
Matt. i. 6 .
92
xix. 23, 24 .
141
Num. xxvi. 6, 7
*
94
cxxii. I . . .
371
i. 18 .
104
xix. 42, 44
141
Deut. i. 7, 23*
190
cxxxii. 2* . .
94
ii.* . .
94
xxi. 20 , , .
141
xix. 14 .
296
cxxxvi. 4, 17, 23
ii. 19, 20
95
xxi. 23, 24 .
141
XXV. 5 sy.*
91
24 . , .
371
ii. 22 .
95
xxii. 18* . .
142
Josh. i. 6, 7, 9*
190
cxlvi. 3, 4 . .
368
iv. 12 .
153
xxiii. 7-1 1* .
107
V. 13* . .
372
Prov. iii. 12* . .
374
vi. 24* .
161
xxiii. 34 . .
126
V. 13-15
83
viii. 12, 15, 16
84
vi. 34* .
252
xxiv. 39* . .
168
I Sam. ii. 8 .
. 371
viii. 22-25, 27
vii. 15*
231
John i. I . . . .8
2, 310
iv. 20 .
. 86
, 28, 30, 31 .
84
ix. 20 stj. * .
304
i. 3 . . . .
82
I Chron. xvi. 2
z
. 87
Isa. iii. 10 . . .
126
X. 1-4*
97. 98
i. 14. . . ■
310
Job ix. 10 .
371
vi. 9* . . .
lOI
X. 8* .
. 222
ii. II ...
153
Ps. ii. I, 2 .
86
vii. 14 . . .
223
X. 9, 10
■ 236
iii. 23 . . .
153
ii. 7, 8 .
86
ix. 2* . . .
. 90
X. 10* .
■ 252
iii. 24 . . .
153
ii. 8 . .
• 143
ix. 6* . . .
• 372
X. 18* .
• 347
iii. 31* . . .
315
vii. 15, 16
364
xxvii. I* . .
. 215
xi. 27* .
. 82
V. 19 . . .
373
viii. 2 .
374
XXX. 6* . . .
277
xii. 33 ■
. 236
V. 29* . . .
191
ix. 5
374
xxxv. I . . 374
,376*
xiii. 14*
. lOI
xi. 49, 51* •
96
ix. 6 . .
374
XXXV. 3, 4 . .
■ 374
xiii. 17*
• 369
xiii. 23* . 27
3.310
xviii. 31
105
xxxv. 6 . . .
■ 374
xiv. 1-12*
• 97
xiii. 23. 25* .
310
xviii. 41
• 374
XXXV. 7 . .
• 374
xvi. 17 .
• 310
xiv. 16*. . .
• 213
xix. 4 .
107
M43
xlii. 6* . . .
. 90
xvi. 18 .
• 273
XV. 13* . . .
. 213
XX. 8 .
• 374
xlii. 9 . . .
• 307
xvii. 20*
. 142
xvi. 2 . . .
• 213
xxvi. 8 •
• 371
xlix. 6* . .
. 90
xviii. 7 .
• 338
xviii. 13* . .
• 96
xxxiii. 9
! s
!2. 373
xlix. 8 . . .
. 301
xix. 12 .
• 254
xix. 15* . .
. 109
6i4 INDEX OF TEXTS IN THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
John xix. 25* .
146, 164
Acts xii. 25* . .
. 136
I Cor. V. 3 . . . . 300
2 Tim. iv. 16* ,
. 124
xix. 26*
. . 310
xiii. I f/ a/.* .
. 98
ix. 5* .
. 162
iv. 16, 17 .
. 124
XX. 2* . .
• • 310
xiii. 5 . . .
. 310
XV. 5-7*
• 99
iv. 18 . .
. 124
XX. 29* . .
. lOI
xiii. 5, 13* .
• 310
XV. 7
■ 99
iv. 21* . 133,
137. 221
xxi. 7, 20*
. . 310
xiii. 13 . . .
. 136
XV, 8-10*
■ 105
Tit. i. 5* . . .
. 136
xxi. 25*
• 273
XV. 22, 27, 32*
. 234
2 Cor. i. 19*
• 234
iii. 5* . .
• 374
Acts i. 21* . .
• 99
XV. 37* . . .
• 310
ii. 15* .
. 215
iii. 10, II .
. 188
i. 23-26* .
. 103
XV. 37, 39* .
. 136
iii- 3
355
Philem. 2 . .
. 136
i. 23 . .
. :I72
I XV. 40* .- . .
. 136.
iii. 6
273,
, ..:.,I2* . . .
• 305
ii. 3. . .
• .378
xv.-xviii.* . .
• 234
iii. 18*
320
'Heb. V. 6, 10* .
. 86
ii. 45 . .
. 118
xvi. I sq.*
. 136
vi. 16
377
vi. 20* . .
. 86
iii, 14* . .
. 142
xvii. 34* . .
137,201
X. 5 .
"5
viii.* . .
. 86
iv. 36* . .
. 98
xyiii.* . . .
. 136
xi. 6.
273
x. 34 . .
. 283
V. 29 . .
242, 300
xviii. 2, 18, 19
sq.*, 122
xii. I sq
*
311
xii. 6 . .
• 374
V. 36 . .
112
xviii. 17* . .
• 99
xii. 2-4"
152
xii. 22 . .
• 352
V. 37 • •
. 89
xix. 22* . .
• 136
Gal. i. I .
105
xii. 22, 23*
• 378
vi.* . . .
. 161
xix. 29* . .
. 136
i. 16
105
I Pet. i. I* . .
132, 136
vi. 1-6*
. 104
XX. 4* . . .
• 136
i. 19.
104, 305*
ii. 13 -J'/-* .
. 190
vii.* . . .
. 104
xxi. 8, 9 . .
. 163
li. I, 9,
13"
... 99
v. 6* . .
. 218
vii. 8 S(j.* .
104, 138
xxi. 9* . . .
• 234
ii. 2*
. • 311
V. 12* . .
• 234
vii. 60 . .
. 218
xxi. 10* . .
106, 234
ii. II
• • 99
V. 13 . .
116,273
viii. I, 3, 5*
. 104
xxi. 29* . .
. 136
iv. 26
352, 378*
I John i. I . .
239, 310
viii. 9 SI/.* .
105, IIS
xxi. 38 . . .
• 123
Phil. i. 23*
• 369
i. I, 2 . .
• 310
viii. 10*
• 105
xxii. 6 sq.*
• 105
ii. 6 .
• 217
i. 2, 3 . .
• 310
viii. 26 S(/.*
. 105
XXV. sq.* . .
• 123
ii. 6-8
• 331
iv. 18 . .
• 331
ix. S(/.* . .
• 136
xxvi. 12 sq.* .
• 105
ii. 25
. 136
2 John I* . .
. 310
ix. 3 sy* .
• 105
xjcvii. 2 . . .
. 136
iv. 3.
137,* 147
3 John I* . .
• 310
ix. 15 . .
. 105
xxviii. 26-28*
. lOI
iv. 8 .
• 354
Rev. i. I, 2 , ,
• 310
ix. 27 ei al*
. i36
x^viii. 30* . .
. 124
Col. i. 6* .
. . 107
i. 4 • • .
• 310
x. I sq* .
. 107
Rom. ii. 16 . . ,
• 137
iv. 3
• . 300
i. 5 . . .
. 218
xi. 19* . .
. 104
viii. 18 . _. .
. 212
iv. 10*
. 123
i. 9 . . .
• 310
xi. 20* . .
. 107
X. 2 . . . .
• 351
iv. 14
. . 136
ii. 6, 15* .
. 161
xi. 22 sq* .
. 107
xi. 7 sq.* . .
. lOI
I Thess. i. i*
. 234
iii. 14 . .
. 218
xi. 26* . .
. 107
xiii. I sq.* . .
. 190
2 Thess. i. i*
• 234
X. 4* . .
• 273
xi. 28* . .
107, no
XV. 19 . . .
.
I Tim. iii. 15
• 371
xiii. 5 . .
. 298
xi. 29, 30 .
.
121, 132,*
136, 273
vi. 5 .
314, 371
xiii. 18* .
148, 222
107,* 1
10*, 1x3
xvi. 14* . .
• '35
vi. 20 .
.
xiv. 4 . .
. 213
xii. I, 2 • .
. no
xvi. 25 . . .
• 137
81*, 164
, I'
78*, 317*
XX. 4* . .
. 160
xii. 2* . .
• 138
I Cor. i. I . . .
• 99
2 Tim. ii. 8 .
• 137
xxi. 2* . .
• 370
xii. 3 sq* . .
. Ill
i. 27, 28 . .
• 213
iv. 6. .
. 124
xxii. 7, 8 .
309, 310
xii. 12, 25* .
. 310
ii. 9 . . . .
• 378
iv. 10* .
• 137
xxii. II
. 217
xii. 19 sq.*
. Ill
iv. 4* . . .
. 168
iv. II* .
. 124
xxii. 18* ".
. 201
xii. 23 . . .
. Ill
iv. 13* . . .
• 307
. -
i'assages marked with an asterisk are simply referred to in text or notes, not quoted.
r:
INDEX 1' O
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
Aaron, 373.
Abdus of Edessa, loi.
Abdus, the father of the preceding,
101.
Abgarus, Prince of Edessa, corre-
spondence of, with Christ, 100,
loi; healed by Thaddeus, loi,
104.
Abihus, second bishop of Alexandria,
147, 149.
Abraham, 83, 87, 88.
Achjeus, a judge at Cresarea, 303.
Achillas, presbyter of Alexandria, 321.
Achior, the Ammonite, 93.
Acolyths, 288.
Actium, 263.
Acts, book of, 88, 98, 112, 113, 117,
122, 136, 137, 163, 172, 261, 310;
written by Luke during Paul's
imprisonment in Rome, 124 (and
note 14), 273; rejected by the
Severians, 209; part of N. T.
Canon, 155.
Adam, 92; salvation of, denied by
Tatian, 208.
Adamantius, Origen so named, 261.
Adauctus, a martyr, 332.
Adiabene, 113.
Adrianus, a martyr, 354.
Advocate (Trapa/fArjroi'), 213.
yEdesius, introduces Christianity into
Ethiopia, 105 (note 30).
yEdesius, a martyr, 347.
/Elia, 113 (note 7), 294, 352; colon-
ized, 177; library of, 268.
/Elianus, 313.
yElius Adrian. See Hadrian.
yElius Publius Julius, bishop of Dc-
beltum in Thrace, 237.
i^imilian, Roman emperor, 298 (note
I)-
yEmilianus, prefect of Egypt, 299, 301.
^milius Frontinus, proconsul at
Ephesus, 236.
Africa, 286, 287, 296, 328, 356, 381,
382.
Africanus, Julius, on Herod, 89-90,
93; on the genealogy of Christ,
91-94; life and writings of, 276,
277; his epistle to Origen, 277;
goes to Alexandria to see Hera-
clas, 276; epistle of, to Aristides,
277.
Agabus, the prophet, 107, no, 234.
Agapius, bishop of Caesarea, 320.
Agapius, a martyr, 344, 347, 34S.
Agapius, a martyr, 345.
Agathobuli, the two, 319.
Agathonice, a martyr, 193.
Agrapha, or extra-canonical sayings
of Christ, 296 (note 3).
Agrippa I. 'bee Herod Agrippa I.
Agrippa II. See Herod Agrippa II.
Agrippa, Castor, 178.
Agrippinus, bishop of Alexandria, 197,
224.
Albinus, procurator of Judea, 127, 143
(note 8).
Alburnus, an idol, 106.
Alee, sister of the eirenarch Herod,
Alcibiades, a Montanist, 218.
Alcibiades, a Gallic witness in the
persecution under Marcus Aurc-
lius, 218.
Alcibiades, opponent of Montanism,
234-
Alexander, husband of Salome, 95.
Alexander, the Alabarch, brother of
Philo, 108.
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, 260,
274, 280, 281, 291, 294 (?; see
note 2) ; becomes coadjutor of
Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem,
255-257, 256 (note l); quoted,
256, 261, 26S.
Alexander, bishop of Rome, 174, 175,
221.
Alexander, a Gallic witness in the
persecution under Marcus Aure-
lius, 216.
Alexander, a martyr of Eumenia, 233.
Alexander, a martyr under Decius,
284.
Alexander, a martyr at Caesarea under
Valerian, 302.
Alexander of Egypt, a martyr under
Maximin, 345.
Alexander of Cjaza, a martyr under
Maximin, 345.
Alexander, a Montanist, 236.
Alexander of Tyre, 294 (see note 2).
Alexander Severus, Roman emperor,
269, 270, 272, 274.
Alexandria, 108, 109, 149, 175, 178,
182, 195, 197, 205, 224, 240, 249,
251, 253, 254, 262, 267, 268, 271,
272, 274, 276, 278, 298, 302, 305,
312, 313, 318, 319, 321, 322, 332,
334, 337. 347» 360; church of,
founded by ATark, il6; library
of, 223; schot)l of, 225; martyrs
of, under Decius, 283; sedition
in, 205; pestilence in, 306, 307 ;
mutilation of Christians in, dur-
ing the Diocletian persecution,
332; table of bishops of, 401.
Allegorical interpretation of the
Scriptures, 266 (note i).
Allegorists, refuted by Nepos, 308.
Alphaeus, a martyr, 343.
Amaseia, a city of Pontus, 386.
Amastris, 20 1.
Ambrose, friend of Origen, 264;
gives Origen financial aid, 271,
274.
Ammia, a prophetess of Philadelphia,
234-
Amnion, martyr under Decius, 2S5.
Ammon, of Bernice, addressed by
Dionysius, 311.
Ammonarium, martyr under Decius,
284.
Ammonite. See Achior (he Aiiii/io-
nite.
Ammonius, the Neo-Platonist, 265,
266.
Ammonius, Christian writer, 266, 267.
Ammonius, a martyr, 334.
Ananias, a courier, 100, loi.
Ananias, a countryman, 142.
Ananus, high priest, [97], 127, 128.
Anatolius of Alexandria, becomes
bishop of Laodicea, 318; con-
duct of, during the siege of the
Pyrucheium, 31S; writings of,
319, 320; Paschal canons of,
319; Institutes of, 320; death
of, 320.
Anchialus, 237.
Ancient Martyrdoms, Collection of,
190, 211, 219, 240.
Ancyra, in Galatia, 230.
Andrew, the Apostle, 171 ; labors in
Scythia, 132; "Acts of," 157.
Anea, 351.
Anencletus, second liishop of Rome,
147, 149, 221.
Anicetus, l^ishop of Rome, 182, 183,
187, 197, 198, 199, 221, 243;
concedes the administration of
the Eucharist to Polycarp in
Rome, 244.
Annas, or Ananus, the high priest,
96, 97.
6i6
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
Annianus, first bishop of Alexandria,
128, 147, 149.
Anteros, bishop of Rome, 275.
Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, 327,
.333-
Antichrist, 222.
Antilegomena (a.vTi\ey6ixei'a, or avTi-
Kfytcrdai), 135; meaning of, as
used by Eusebius, 155 (note i).
Antinoites, addressed by Alexander
of Jerusalem, 257.
Antinous, slave of Hadrian, 180.
Antioch, 104, 107, 113, 149, 165, 168,
197, 202, 237, 240, 250, 257, 269,
271, 275, 281, 283, 286, 290, 291,
294. 303. 314, 315. 317. 320, 332,
333. 334, 343. 358, 359, 360, 368;
heresy of Paul of Samosata in-
troduced at, 312-316; table of
bishops of, 402.
Antipater, 89, 90, 92, 93.
Antiquity of Christianity, 82 sj.
Antiquity of the Hebrew nation, 87.
Antoninus (Pius), 114, 180, 182, 185,
188, 196, 220; edict of, to the
Common Assembly of Asia, 186;
Eusebius' confusion in regard to
successors of, discussed, 390,391.
Antoninus (Verus), see Marcus Aur.
Antoninus (Elagabalus), 268.
Antoninus (Caracalla), 255, 268.
Antoninus, a martyr, 350.
Antony (Mark), 88, 93.
Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, 380,
381. Z^Z-
Apamea, on the Maeander, 233.
Apelles, disciple of Marcion, 227,
229.
Apion, an ecclesiastical writer, 245.
Apion, an Alexandrian grammarian
and enemy of Jews, 108, 144, 170.
Apocalypse of John, 147, 171 ; prob-
ably written by John the Presljy-
ter, 171 ; Eusebius' view of, 155;
part of N. T. Canon, 156.
Apocalypse of Peter, 134, 156.
Apolinarius, l^ishop of Hierapolis,
198, 203, 230; writings of, 206,
207, 237; narrates the story of
the "Thundering Legion," 220.
Apollo, 90, 92.
ApoUonia, a martyr under Decius,
283.
Apollonides, a follower of Theodotus
the co])bler, 248.
ApoUonius, work of, against the Mon-
tanists quoted, 235, 236.
ApoUonius, a Roman martyr, 239.
Apollophanes, a Stoic philosoj)her,266.
Apologists, during reign of Hadrian,
175-
Apostle, the, referring to Paul, 209.
Apostles, successions of the, 81, 82;
appointed by Christ, 98, 99;
careers of, after the ascension of
Christ, 103-105, 132; epistles of,
133; first successors of, 136;
preach to all nations, 138;
"Teaching of the Twelve,"
placed among the v6Qoi, 156;
which of them were married,
161, 171.
Apphianus, a martyr, 345, 347.
Apselamus, a martyr, 351.
Aquila, companion of Paul, 1 21.
Aquila, governor and judge, 251, 253.
Aquila, companion of Dionysius of
Alexandria, 301.
Aquila of Pontus, translator of the
Old Testament, 223, 262, 263.
Arabia, 267, 26S, 294, 332.
Arabian, 89.
Arabian mountain, 285.
Arabians, dissension of, healed by
Origen, 279.
Arabianus, an ecclesiastical writer,
245-
Archelaus, son of Herod the Great,
90, 95, 96.
Ardeban, in Mysia, 231.
Areopagite. See Dionysius the Are-
opagile.
Ares, a martyr, 351.
Aretas, king of Petra, 97.
Aristarchus, Paul's fellow - prisoner,
123-
Aristides, epistle to, from Africanus,
91, 277.
Aristides, the apologist, 175.
Aristion, 171.
Aristo of Pella, 177.
Aristobulus, king and high priest of
the Jews, 90, 93.
Aristobulus, a Jewish writer, 260.
Aristol)ulus, Hellenistic philosopher
of Alexandria, 319.
Aristotelian school, 318.
Aristotle, admired by the Theodo-
tians, 247.
Arithmetic, Anatolius' Institutes of,
320.
Aries, Synod of, summoned by Con-
stantine, 382.
Armenia, 291; Christianization of,
362 (note 2).
Armenians go to war with Maximin,
362.
Arsinoe, in Egypt, 309.
Artaxerxes, 145, 224.
Artemon, or Artemas, heresy of, 246;
relation of, to Paul of Samosata,
315-
Ascalon, 89, 92, 351.
Asclepiades, bishop of Antioch, 257,
269, [24S].
Asclepiodotus, a discijile of Theodo-
tus the col)l)ler, 247, [248].
Asclepius, a martyr, 351.
Asia, 132, 136, 185, 1 86, 187, 188,
190, 192, 205, 206, 212, 219, 222,
223, 229, 230, 232, 236, 237, 238,
241, 242, 277, 310.
Asphaltitcs, Lake of, 95.
Asterius Url)anus, 232.
Astyrius, remarkable story in regard
to, 304.
Atcr, martyr under Dionysius, 284.
Atheists, Christians called, 190.
Athenagoras, author of a lost apology,
196 (note 3).
Athenians, 200, 206.
Athenodorus, brother of Gregory
Thaumaturgus, 276, 303, 312.
Athens, 138, 201, 277.
Attains, a Gallic witness in the perse-
cution under Marcus Aurelius,
213, 215, 216, 218.
Attica, 321.
Atticus, proconsul of Judea, 164.
Atticus, bishop of Synada, 268.
Augustus, emperor of Rome, 88, 89,
90. 93. 96, 205.
Aurelian, becomes emperor, 313; pe-
titioned to adjudicate the case of
Paul of Samosata, 316; friend-
liness toward Christians, 316;
plans to persecute Christians,
316; death of, 316.
Aurelius. See Marcus Aurelius.
Aurelius Cyrenius, a witness, 237.
Aurelius Cyrenius, imperial official in
Egypt, 302.
Auses (Joshua), 85.
Autolycus, addressed by Theophilus,
202.
Auxentius, a martyr, 34S.
Avercius Marcellus, addressed by
Apolinarius, 230.
Bal)ylas, bishop of Antioch, 275, 281.
Babylon, 90, 273.
Bacchius, grandfather of Justin, 185.
Bacchylides, 201.
Bacchylus, bishop of Corinth, 240, 241.
Baptism, 151 (note 16); clinical, re-
ceived by Novatus, 288; called
"seal" {a(ppayis), 289; discus-
sion regarding baptism of here-
tics, 294-297; of the Church,
rejected by Novatus, 297.
Baptism of John, 98.
Barabbas, the robber, 347.
Barcabbas, prophet invented by Basil-
ides, 179.
Barcocheba, leader of the Jews, 177,
181.
Barcoph, prophet invented by Basil-
ides, 179.
Bardesanes, the Syrian, works of, 209.
Barnabas, 310; one of the Seventy,
98, 104; called "prophet," 107,
no, 113; probable author of
Epistle to the Hebrews, 134
(note 17); epistle of, 260, 261;
epistle of, placed among the v6doi,
156.
Barsabas, 99 (note 10), 172.
Basilica of Tyre, 375 st/.
Basilicus, a Marcionite, 228.
Basilides, the Gnostic, 178; works of,
179.
Basilides, pujiil of Origen, suffers
martyrdom, 253.
Basilides, bishop in Pentapolis, ad-
dressed by Dionysius, 311.
Basilidians, 199.
Benjamin, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Bernice, church of, 311.
Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Asia,
26S; error of, 277; his concep-
tion of Christ, 277; brought
back to orthodoxy by Origen,
277.
Berytus, now Beirut, 345.
Besas, martyr under Decius, 284.
Beseleel, 370, 373.
Bethlehem, 88, 94, 95.
Biblias, a Gallic witness in the perse-
cution under Marcus Aurelius,
214.
INDEX to The church history.
617
Bishop, ainonfj the 'l"herapcuta\ 1 19;
rehitioii df, to presbyter in the
early ehurcli, 150; only one in a
city, 287.
r>ithynia, 132, 136, 294.
Hilliara, fortress of, 177.
liiainlina, a GalUc witness in the per-
secution under Marcus Aurelius,
213, 215-217.
Blastus, schism of, at Rome, 229, 237.
Kolanus, 313.
Bostra, in Arabia, 268, 277, 312.
Brethren of the Lord, 99 (note I4).
Brucheium. See Pyriicheium.
CxciHanus, l)ishop of Carthage, ^81,
3S2, 383-
Cassarea in Cappadocia,
-/4. j"Jj.
!I2.
Cnssarea in Palestine, 107, iii, 163,
240, 241, 2qt;, 267, 268, 271, 274,
275, 277, 294, 303,312, 320, 334,
343. 346, 347. 348- 349. 351. 352,
354-
Cnssarea Philippi, famous wonder at,
304-
Caiaphas, the high priest, 96, 97.
Caius, emperor of Rome, 107, 108;
hostility of, toward the Jews,
109, no; mentioned, 112, 121.
Caius, an ecclesiastical writer, 129;
attitude of, towards the Apoca-
lypse, 160 (note 4) ; dialogue of,
163, 268.
Caius, bishop of Rome, 317.
Callirhoe, a town east of the Dead
Sea, 95.
Callistio, addressed by Rhodo, 228.
Callistus, bishop of Rome, 268.
Camithus, father of Simon the high
priest, 97.
Candidus, an ecclesiastical writer, 245.
Canon, of N. T. Scriptures. See N.
T. Canon. Of Old Testament.
See O. T. Canon.
Capito, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem,
226.
Cappadocia, 132, 136, 257, 274, 291,
294, 295, 303, 312, 313, 332, 353,
354-
Caracalla, emperor of Rome, 255,
263, 268.
Caricus, receives letter from Serapion,
. 237. 258.
Carinus becomes emperor, 316.
Carpocrates, the Gnostic, 179.
Carpocatians, immorality of, 1 14
(note 18), 199.
Carpus, a martyr, 193.
Carthage, 294, 381, 382.
Carus, emperor of Rome, 316.
Cassianus, Gentile bishop of Jerusa-
lem, 226.
Cassianus, an ecclesiastical writer, 260.
Cassius, bishop of Tyre, 244.
Catechumens, training of, 297
(note 3).
Cathari, followers of Novatus, 286.
Catholic Church, 380, 381, 383.
Catholic epistles, 128, 261.
Celadion, bishop of Alexandria, 184,
197.
Celerinus, a Roman confessor, 287.
Celibacy, preached by the Encratiles,
208.
Celsus, the Epicurean, 268; work
against, by Origen, 278.
Cemeteries of the Christians, 303,
358-
Cephas, one of the " Seventy," 99.
Cephro, in Libya, 300, 301.
Cerdon, third bishop of Alexandria,
149.
Cerdon, the Gnostic, 182, 183.
Cerinthus, the heretic, 160, 161;
avoided and denounced by John
the Apostle, 187; chiliasm of,
309-
Chajremon, the Stoic, 266.
Cha^remon, bishop of Nilus, 285.
Chaeremon, a deacon, companion of
Dionysius of Alexandria, 299,
300, 301.
Chiliasm, in the third century, 308
(note i) ; of Cerinthus and the
Cerinthians, 309.
Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse, 381.
Christ, pre-existence and divinity of,
82-85; the name of, known
from the beginning, 85-87; di-
vinity of, 86; types of, 86; time
of his appearance among men,
88, 89; birth of, 88; genealogy
of, 91-94; beginning of his min-
istry, 96; testimony of John the
Baptist, in regard to, 98; spread
of doctrine of, 107; predictions
of, 141 ; family of, 148; age of,
150 (note 5); spoken of as God
(0eoAo7€rTai), 247; taught to be
God and man by Irena^us and
Melito, 247; denial of, an indif-
ferent matter according to the
Elkesites, 280 ; body and blood
of, 289; worshiped as "Very
God," 372; the bridegroom of
the church, 376; dwells in the
bishops and presbyters, 378; as
high priest receives the sacrifices
of his people and bears them to
God, 378.
Christianity, antiquity and divinity of,
82 sq.
Christians, origin of name, 107; ac-
cusations against, 180; called
Atheists, 190; mutilations of,
333; right of holding property
guaranteed to them by Constan-
tine and Licinius, 380; property
of, restored by Constantine and
Licinius, 380.
Christophany, 83 (note ll).
Chronicle of Eusebius, 82.
Chronological Canons of Eusebius.
See Chronicle of Eusebius.
Chrysophora, addressed by Dionysius
of Corinth, 202.
Church, the bride of Christ, 376, 377.
Church, Holy Catholic, 188, 189, 191,
299. 313. 315-.
Churches, destruction of, under Dio-
cletian, 324; restoration of, after
the great persecution, 370; dedi-
cation of, 370 sq.
Cilicia, 291, 294, 295, 350, 351,
352.
Circumcision given to Al)rahani, 88.
Clarus, Ijishop of I'tolemais, 244.
Claudius I., emperor of Rome, no,
114; drives Jews out of Rome,
121 ; death of, 122.
Claudius II., emperor of Rome, 313.
Claudius Apolinarius. See Apolina-
rius of Ilicrapolis.
Clement, of Alexandria, 99, 116, 127,
166, 225 ; Hypoty poses, 104, 1 10,
125, 150, 161, 162; work of, on
the Passover, 205; his Stromata,
225, 254; speaks of Christ as
God, 247; succeeds Pantaenus as
principal of the catechetical
school of Alexandria, 253; gives
chronological table extending to
the reign of Commodus, 254;
with Alexander of Jerusalem,
257; writings of, 258-261.
Clement, of Rome, third bishop of
Church of Rome, 137, 149, 221;
epistle of, 147, 169, 260; death
of, 166; traditional translator of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 169;
writings falsely ascribed to, 170;
Epistle of, to the Corinthians,
198; read in the Corinthian
Church in the time of Dionysius,
201 ; author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews according to some,
273; his relation to the epistle
according to Origen, 273.
Clement, consul of Rome. See Fla-
z'ius Clement.
" Clementines." See Clement of
Rome.
Cleobians. See Cleobius.
Cleobius, a heretic, 199.
Cleopatra, 88.
Clergy, 289; exempted by Constan-
tine from political duties, 383.
Clopas, father of Simeon and brother
of Joseph, 146, 163, 164, 199.
Cnosians, inhabitants of Cnosus of
Crete, 201.
Cochaba, a village of Judea, 93.
Coele- Syria, 226.
Colluthion, 300.
Commodus, emperor of Rome, 224,
239, 240, 245, 254.
Confession of faith, attitude of Nova-
tus towards, 297 (note 3).
Confessors, (^dfj.6Xoyot), 2i8j ad-
dressed by Novatus, 292.
Confirmation, 289 (note 25).
Conon, bishop of Hermopolis, 291.
Constantine, becomes emperor, 335 ;
conquers Maxentius, 363, 364;
enters Rome in triumph, 364;
erects a statue in Rome with the
cross in its hand, 364; issues in
conjunction with Licinius an
edict of toleration, 364, 365, 368;
edict of toleration, copy of, 378-
380; summons a synod at Rome,
381; summons a synod at Aries,
381; grants money to the
churches, 382; favors shown by
him to Licinius, 384; conquers
Licinius, 386; becomes sole em-
peror and enjoys lasting peace
and prosperity, 386, 387.
6i8
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
Constantius, joins Galerius in issuing
an edict of toleration, 339;
friendliness of, toward Chris-
tians, 335, 341; death of, 335,
341-
Coracion, a Chiliast, opposed by Dio-
nysius, 309.
Corinth, church of, founded by Peter
and Paul, 130, 138, 169, 197,
198, 200, 221, 242.
Corinthians, addressed by Paul, 199.
Cornelius, bishop of Antioch, 197.
Cornelius, bishop of Rome, 280, 293;
epistles of, concerning Novatus,
286-287, 2S9, 290, 291.
Cornelius, the centurion, conversion
of, 107.
Cornutus, a philosopher and rhetori-
cian, 266.
Creed, of the Church, attitude of No-
vatus toward, 297 (note 3) ; early
existence of, in the Roman
Church, 297 (note 3).
Crescens, companion of Paul, 137.
Crescens, an enemy of Justin, 193,
194, 195.
Crete, 136, 197, 201.
Crispus, son of Constantine, 3S6.
Cronion Eunus, martyr under De-
cius, 284.
Cronius, a Pythagorean philosopher,
266.
( 'ulcianus, a favorite of Maximin, 368.
Cumanus, procurator of Judea, 122
(note i).
Cynics, life and manners of, 193.
Cyprian, epistles of, concerning the
Novatian schism, 287 ; on rebap-
tism of heretics, 294, 296 (note 6) .
Cyprus, 104, 355.
Cyrene, 174, 175.
Cyrenius, governor of Syria, census
under, 88, 89.
Cyril, bishop of Antioch, 317.
Damas, bishop of Magnesia, 168.
Damascus, 359.
Damnccus, father of Jesus the high
priest, 128.
Daniel, 85, 90, 206, 254, 276, 352.
David, 86, 90, 91, 146, 149, 163, 164.
Deacons, not to be identitied with the
" Seven," 103 (note 2a) ; limited
to seven in the Roman Church,
288 (note 18).
Decius, becomes emperor, 280; per-
secution under, 280-2S6, 301 ;
slain, 293; wickednessof, 307, 326.
Demetrianus, bishop of Antioch, 291,
294. 303, 312, 315.
Demetrius, a Jewish writer, 260.
Demetrius, companion of Dionysius
of Alexandria, 301.
Demetrius, bishop, addressed by the
Emperor Gallienus, 302.
Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, 240,
250, 254, 255, 262, 267, 268, 274,
275, 291, 294; hostility of, to
Origen, 255; relations of, with
Origen discussed, 394.
Desposyni, or the relatives of Christ,
93-
Diaconal epistle of Dionysius, 291.
Diaconate, 103, 104; among the
TherapeutK, 119.
Diatessaron, of Tatian, 209.
Didymus, addressed by Dionysius of
Alexandria, 301, 305.
Diocletian, becomes emperor, 316;
persecution of, 316; friendliness
of, toward Christians, 323; first
edict of, against Christians, 324,
342; second edict of, against
Christians, 325, 342; third edict
of, against Christians, 325, 328,
342; abdication of, 335, 340,
345; death of, 340; martyrs
under, in Palestine, 342; so-
called fourth edict of, issued by
Maximian, 344 (note 2) ; so-
called fifth edict of, issued by
Galerius and jMaximinus, 350
(note l), 364, 366; causes of
the persecution of, discussed,
397-400.
Dionysia, martyr under Decius, 284.
Dionysius, the Areopagite, 137; first
bishop of Athens, 138, 200.
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria,
quoted, 160, 281, 283-2S6, 300;
succeeds Ileraclas as principal
of the catechetical school, 275,
278; epistle of, to Germanus,
281; sufferings of, during the
Decian persecution, 282, 301,
302; epistle of, to Fabius, 283-
286, 290; attitude of, toward the
lapsed, 283 (note l), 285, 286,
290; his account of Serapion,
290; epistle of, to Novatus, 290,
291 ; various epistles of, 291, 31 1,
312; on Repentance, 291 ; on
Martyrdom, 291; against Nova-
tus, 291; epistles of, on the re-
baptism of the lapsed, 294, 295,
296, 297; appealed to by Euse-
bius as an authority, 293, 318;
on Sabellius and his heresy, 295,
31 1; attitude of, toward hereti-
cal teachings, 295 ; on the perse-
cution under Valerian, 298-302;
sufferings of, during persecution
under Valerian, 299-301; ad-
dressed by the Emperor Galli-
enus, 302; festal epistles of, 305,
307; Paschal canon of, 305; on
the Sabbath, 307; to Hermam-
mon, 307; on the Promises, 308;
on the Apocalypse of John, 309;
to Amnion of Bernice, 31 1; to
Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Eu-
porus, 311; on Nature, on Tem])-
tations. Exposition of Ecclesi-
astes, 31 1 ; to Dionysius of Rome,
to Basilides of Pentapolis, 311;
invited to attend synod called
against Paul of Samosata, 312;
death of, 313, 321.
Dionysius, bishop of Coriiith, 130,
137, 197, 202; epistles, 200, 201.
Dionysius of Rome, 295, 296, 298,
311, 312, 313, 316, 317.
Dionysius, a martyr of Palestine,
345-
Dioscorus, companion of Dionysius of
Alexandria, 301.
Dioscorus, confessor uniler Decius,
284,285.
Disciples, careers of, after ascension
of Christ, 132.
Dispensation (olKovo/xia) of Christ,
81, 82.
Dispersion, Hebrews of the, 136.
Dius, bishop of Jerusalem, 256.
Dius, a martyr, 334.
Divinity of Christ (OeoXoyia), dis-
cussed by Eusebius, 82-86.
Divinity of Christianity, 82 sij.
Docetiv, 258.
Dolichianus, Gentile bishop of Jeru-
salem, 226.
Domitian, becomes emperor, 147;
persecution under, 147, 148, 205,
222; commands that descendants
of David be slain, 148, 150, 163,
164.
Domitius, addressed by Dionysius of
Alexandria, 301, 305.
Domninus, an apostate, addressed by
Serapion, 257.
Domninus, a martyr, 348.
Domnus, bishop of Antioch, 315, 316,
317-
Domnus, bishop of Civsarea, 303.
Donatist schism, 3S0 (note 16), 383
(note 12).
Dorotheus, presbyter of Antioch, 317.
Dorotheus, a meml^er of Diocletian's
household, 323, 327.
Dositheans. See Dositheus.
Dositheus, a heretic, 199.
Ebionites, heresy of, 15S-160, 223,
264; relation of, to the Elke-
ites, 280.
Ecclesiastes, commentary on, by Dio-
nysius, 31 1.
Eden, 306.
Edessa, visit of Thaddeus to, 100-
102; Christianity introduced
into, 100-102, 104.
Egypt, 88, 93, 94, 95, 174, 175, 226,
249, 250, 267, 291, 298, 299, 300,
301, 305. 307> 308, 328, 329, 334,
351. 355. 360, 368.
Egyptian false prophet, mentioned in
the Acts, sedition of, 123.
Egyptian nation, 305.
Elagabalus, Rt)man emperor, 268, 269.
Elders, account of appointment of, in
Acts vi., 103 (note 2a); "The
Ancient Elders," 133, 171.
Eleazer, the high priest, 97.
I'Heazer of Pathezor, 140.
Eleutheropolis, 350, 351.
Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, 184, 199,
211, 219-221, 240.
Eli, son of Melchi, 91, 92, 94.
lilias, a martyr, 351.
IClijah, 352.
Elkesilcs, heresy of, 280.
Elpistus, of Amastris, 201.
Emesa, 334.
P^mesa in Pha-nicia, 360.
Encratites, 207, 208.
Ennathas, a martyr, 350.
Enoch, book of, 320.
Ephcsus, 162, 163, 167, 171, 186, 187,
196, 222, 223, 236, 237, 241, 242,
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
619
310 ; church of, founded by
I'aul, 150.
Kplircs, l)ishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Epiniachus, martyr under Decius, 2S4.
Epistles, of the Apostles, 155; Catho-
lic, 261 ; thirteen of Paul, 26S.
Eros, bishop of Antioch, 197.
Esdras, 206.
Essenes, Jewish, sect, 199.
Estha, wife of Mattlir.n, 91.
Ethiopia, Christianity introduced into,
105 (note 30), 347.
Ethiopian eunuch, conversion of, 105.
Eubulus, a martyr, 354.
Eucharist, the, 243, 290.
Euclid, studied by the Theodolians,
248.
Euelpis, 268.
Eumenes, bishop of Alexandria, 177,
184.
Eumenia, 233, 242.
Eunuchs, eligibility of, to clerical offi-
ces, 317 (note 12).
Eunus. See Cronion Eunus.
Euphranor, addressed by Dionysius,
311.
Euphrates river, 100.
Eupolemus, a Jewish writer, 260.
Euporus, addressed by Dionysius, 311.
Eusebius, claim of, to be called the
" Father of Church History," 81
(note 5); Canon of, 155-157.
Eusebius of Alexandria, a deacon and
companion of Dionysius of Alex-
andria, 299, 301, 302; becomes
bishop of Laodicea, 302, 318;
conduct of, during the siege of
the Pyrucheium, 319, 320; death
of, 320.
Eutychianus, bishop of Rome, 317.
Eutychius, 313.
Evangelists, still eminent in time of
Trajan, 169.
Evarestus, bishop of Rome, 166, 174,
221.
Evodius, first bishop of Antioch, 149.
Exodus, the, 319.
Exorcists, 288.
Ezekiel, 206 ; Origen on, 277.
Ezra, the Jewish priest, 224.
Fabi, father of Ishmael the high
priest, 97.
Fabianus, miraculously chosen bishop
of Rome, 274-275; Origen's
epistle to, 279; suffers martyr-
dom, 280.
Fabius, bishop of Antioch, 281, 303;
epistle of Dionysius to, 283;
epistle of Cornelius to, 286-287,
290.
Fadus, procurator of Judea, 112, 113.
I'^alse prophets of the Phrygians. See
J^Iotitaiiists.
Famine, under Claudius, no; in Je-
rusalem, 1 39-141.
Faustinas, companion of Dionysius of
Alexandria, 301, 334.
Faustus, companion of Dionysius of
Alexandria, 282, 299, 300, 301,
302.
Felix, procurator, 1 22 ; subdues Egyp-
tian false prophet, 123.
Felix, bishop of Rome, 316, 317.
Fertur, ^sperai, the use of the word
as lo writings, 388 sij.
Festus, procurator of Judca, 123, 125,
127.
Firmiliaii, bishop of Ciesarea in Cap-
padocia, 274, 291, 294, 295, 303,
312, 313; attitude of, toward
Paul of Samosata, 314; death of,
Firmilianus, governor of Palestine,
349, 350, 352, 353, 354.
Flavia Domitilla, 148.
Flavia Neapolis, 185.
Flavianus, governor of Palestine, 342.
Flavins, addressed by Dionysius, 305.
I'lavius Clement, consul of Rome,
148, 259.
Flavius Josephus. See yosephus.
Florinus, schism of, at Rome, 229,
237, 238.
riorus. See Gessius Florus.
Frumentius, introduces Christianity
into Ethiopia, 105 (note 30).
Fundanus, proconsul and governor of
Asia, 206.
Gains I., Gentile bishop of Jerusalem,
226.
Gains II., Gentile bishop of Jerusa-
lem, 226.
Gaius, martyr of Eumenia, 233.
Gains, companion of Dionysius of
Alexandria, 282, 301.
(ialatia, 132, 136, 230, 295.
Galatians, Epistle of Paul to, 99.
Galba, Roman emperor, 138.
Galen, reverenced by the Theodo-
tians, 248.
Galerius, fatal illness of, 338; his
edict of toleration, 339, 340, 356;
effect of it upon Christians, 357,
358; original author of the Dio-
cletian persecution, 340; death
of, 340; fifth edict of, 350.
Galilean, 89.
Galileans, Jewish sect, 199.
Galilee, 88, 95.
Gallienus, Emperor of Rome, 298,
300, 313 ; peace under, 302, 307.
Gallus, becomes emperor, 293; epis-
tle of Dionysius on, 293; perse-
cutes Christians, 293, 298.
Gamala, a city of Gaulonitis, 89.
Gamaliel, 112.
Gaul, 137, 198, 211, 216, 242, 243,
381.
Gaulonite. See Judas the Cauloiiilc.
(iaza, 334, 344, 345, 349, 355.
Genealogy of Christ, alleged discre-
pancy in the Gospels in regard
to, 91-94, 277.
Gentiles, divine word attacked by, 81 ;
preached to by Paul, 136.
Geon, one of the rivers of Eden, 306.
Georie, the strangers that went out of
Egypt with the Israelites, 93.
Germanicus, martyr of Smyrna, 189.
Germanio, bishop of Jerusalem, 256.
Germans, the, 219.
Germanus, epistle to, from Dionysius,
281, 299, 301.
Germanus, a martyr, 350,
Germany, 220.
Gessius Florus, Procurator of Judea,
130.
Gilto, a %il!age of Samaria, 114.
(Gnosticism, 179; commonly misun-
derstood, 114 (note l"]).
Gomorrah, 83.
Goratheni. See Gortlucus.
Gordianus, emperor of Rome, 274,
278.
Gordius, bishop of Jerusalem, 256.
Gorgonius, a member of Diocletian's
household, 323, 327.
Gorth;T:us, a heretic, 199.
(jortyna, 201, 203.
(jospcl, why not preached in ancient
times, 84.
Gospels, Irenaus on the, 222; of Mat-
thew, see JMatthezi); of Mark, see
Mark; of Luke, see Luke; of
John, see John; order of, 152,
155 ; of the Nazarenes, see A'aza-
renes ; according to the He-
Ijrews, see Hebrews, Gospel of;
of Peter, see Peler ; order of the,
according to Clement, 261; the
four, 273; used by the Elkesites,
280.
Gratus, proconsul of Asia, 231.
Greece, 226, 240.
Greek learning, 276.
Gregory, " the Illuminator," the apos-
tle of Armenia, 362 (note 2).
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 275, 303, 312.
Hades, descent of Christ into, 102.
Hadrian becomes Emperor, 175, 176;
war of the Jews under, 177, 180,
226; rescript in favor of Chris-
tians, iSi, 182, 206; friendliness
toward the Christians, 220.
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 222.
Hebrew nation, antiquity of, 87.
Hebrews, 84, 87, 98; of the disper-
sion, 136.
Hebrews, Ejiistlc to; not included
among Paul's Epistles by Caius,
26S; authorship of, 388; accord-
ing to Origen, 273; referred to
as Paul's, 117, 134; canonicity of,
view of Eusebius, 155, 159, 173,
260, 278; placed among the vcOm,
156, 169; used by Ilegesippus,
200; mentioned by Irenceus, 244.
Hebrews, Gospel of, written originally
in Hebrew, and translated by
Luke, 261.
Ilegesippus, memoirs of, used by Eu-
sebius, 81 (note 5); account of
death of James, the Lord's
brother, 125-127; visits Rome,
1S4, 198; quoted, 146, 148, 149,
163, 164, 180, 197, 1 98, 199.
Helen, Queen of the Osrhoenians, 113.
Helena, companion of Simon Magus,
114; worshiped by his followers,
114.
Ilelenus, bishop of Tarsus, 291, 295,
.312,313.
Heliodorus, of Laodicea, 294.
Hemerobaptists, Jewish sect, 199.
Heraclas, pupil of Origen, and his
successor in the catechetical
620
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
school of Alexandria, 251, 262,
274; successor of Dementrius as
bishop of Alexandria, 251, 274,
275, 297; earnest student of
Greek philosophy, 267; removes
to Cresarea, 274; visited by Afri-
canus, 276; dies, 278; opinion
of on the re-baptism of heretics,
296.
Heracleides, imperial treasurer under
Constantine, 383.
Heraclides, pupil of Origen, martyr-
dom of, 252.
Heraclitus, an ecclesiastical writer,
245-
Herais, pupil of Origen, martyrdom
of, 252.
Heresy, Phrygian. See Montanisin.
Heretics, arise after the death of the
apostles, 164, 202; re-baptism of,
294-297.
Hermammon, addressed by Dionysius
of Alexandria, 293, 298, 307.
Hermas, Shepherd of, 135, 223;
placed among the voBol, 156.
Hermogenes, written against l)y The-
ophilus, 202.
Hermon, bishop of Jerusalem, 321.
Hermophilus, a follower of Theodo-
tus the cobbler, 248.
Hermopolis, 291.
Hero[s], bishop of Antioch, 169, 197.
Hero, pupil of Origen, martyrelom of,
252.
Herod of Ascalon, 89, 92.
Herod the Great, becomes king, 89,
90, 93; lineage of, 93; cruelty
toward the infants, 94; death of,
94, 95; succeeded Ijy Archelaus,
96; puts John to deatli, 98;
fears the coming of Christ, 149.
Herod the Younger, or Herod An-
tipas, 96; exiled with Herodias,
107.
Herod Agrippa I., appointed king of
the yews, 107; kills James, and
imprisons Peter, no; eaten of
worms. III; death of, 112.
Herod Agrippa II., appointed king
of the Jews by Claudius, 122; de-
prives Ananus of the high ])riest-
hood, 128; testitics to the truth-
fulness of Josephus, 146.
Herod, the Eirenarch, 190, 191.
Herodias, wife of Philip and of Herod
Antipas, 97, 98, 107.
Heron, martyr under Decius, 284.
Hesychius, Egyptian bishop and mar-
tyr, 334-
Hexaemeron, work of Hippolytus on
the, 270; works by Candidus and
various Eathers on the, 245.
Hexapla, of Origen, 263.
Hicrapolis, burial-place of Philip, 162,
163, 165, 172, 206, 230, 237, 242.
Hierax, a bishop in Egypt, addressed
by Dionysius, 305, 313.
Hippolytus, a bishop and ecclesiasti-
cal writer, 268; writings of, 269,
270; Paschal canon of, 270;
work of, on the Hexa-meron,
270; against Marcion, 270; on
the Song of Songs, 270; on Eze-
kiel, 270; on the Passover, 270;
against all heresies, 270.
Hippolytus, a messenger by whom
Dionysius sends an epistle to
Rome, 291.
Homologoumena (6/uo Ao7ou^6va),
meaning of, as used by Eusebius,
155 (note I).
Hosius of Cordova, 383.
Hyginus, bishop of Rome, 182, 183,
221, 243.
Hymenreus, bishop of Jerusalem, 303,
312, 313,321.
Hymns, celebrating Christ as God,
247.
Hypotyposes, of Clement. See Clem-
ent of Alexandria.
Hyrcanus, high priest of the Jews,
90, 92.
Iconium, 268, 312; synod of, 296.
Idea, Gnostic, 1 14 (note 13).
Idumean, 89, 90, 92.
Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch,
149, 166; epistles of, 1 66-170;
martyrdom of, 166-169; quoted,
223.
Illyricum, 121, 132, 136, 273, 356.
India, 225, 347.
Ingenes, martyr under Decius, 285.
Ionian, spoken of by Clement of
Alexandria, 225.
IrenKus, 114, 158, 172, 17S, 179, 198,
242, 244, 261; life and writings
of, 198, 244; writes against Mar-
cion, 203 ; quoted, 148, 150, 161,
168, 170, 182, 183, 187, 188, 197,
208,209,223,224,238,239; com-
mended by the Gallic confessors,
219; becomes l^ishop of Lyons,
220; his catalogue of the bish-
ops of Rome, 221 ; gives an ac-
count of post-apostolic miracles,
221; his work against heresies,
221; on the Scriptures, 222-224;
writes against Blastus and Plor-
inus, 237; on Monarchy, 238;
on the Ogdoad, 238; admonishes
Victor not to excommunicate the
Asiatic church, 243; teaches
that Christ is God and man, 247.
Isaac, 83-87.
Isaiah, 86, 126, 206, 299, 307, 352,
376; Origen on, 277.
Ischyrion, slain by his master for not
sacrilicing, 285.
Ishmael, the high priest, 97.
Isidorus, martyr under Decius, 284.
Israel, 83, 91, 93, 306, 324, 352.
Italy, 286, 287, 316, 356.
Jacob, the patriarch, 83, 87.
Jacob, son of Matthan, 91, 92, 94.
James, the son of Zebedec, dealh of,
104, no. Ill, 138; cited as an
authority by Papias, 171; by
Clement of Alexandria, 226 ;
brother of John the a])ostle, 309,
310.
James, the so-called brother of the
Lord, 99; called the Just by the
ancients, 104; why called brother
of the Lord, 104; made first
bishop of Jerusalem, 104, 142,
146, 176, 199; death of, 104;
martyrdom of, 125-128, 138;
epistle of, placed among the An-
tilegomena, 156; episcopal chair
of, preserved until the time of
Eusebius, 305.
Jamna, 352.
Janitors, 288.
Jeremiah, 85, 126, 206, 324, 352.
Jericho, Zt,, 95, 263.
Jerusalem, 90, 100, 132, 136, 165, 177,
223, 235, 241, 255, 256, 257, 268,
273, 274, 291, 303, 310, 321, 352,
370. 378.
Jerusalem, church of, persecuted, 104,
280, 281, 312; bishops of, be-
longing to the circumcision, 176;
Gentile bishops of, 226, 240; full
table of bishops of, down to
time of Eusebius, 302.
Jesus, the name of, known from the
beginning, 85-87 ; statue of,
erected by the woman with an
issue of blood, 304.
Jesus (Joshua), 85, 90, 206.
Jesus, the high priest, 128.
Jesus, son of Ananias, 142.
Jesus, son of Sirach, " Wisdom of,"
260.
Jews, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, loi, 224,
234; misfortunes of, in conse-
quence of plots against Christ,
81; first persecution of, 104;
driven out of Rome by Claudius,
121; calamity at feast of Pass-
over under Claudius, 122; dis-
turbances under Nero, 122, 123;
last war of, against the Romans,
130, 131 ; calamities of, under
Trajan, 174; war of, under Had-
rian, 177, 181 ; assist in persecut-
ing Christians at Smyrna, 190-
192; Justin writes against, 196;
mutilate the Scriptures, 197;
heresies among, 199.
Job, Book of, 206.
John the Baptist, 96, 97, 98, 153.
John, the apostle, 104, 163, 170, 171,
226, 236, 239, 242, 244, 309,
310; receives his revelation in
the time of Domitian, 222; la-
bors in Asia, and dies at Ephe-
sus, 132, 138; banished to Pat-
mos, 148 ; after banishment,
resides in F'phesus, 149, 150;
narrative of, 150; writings of,
154; speaks against Cerinthus,
161, 187; death and burial place,
162; two monuments of, in
Ephesus, 310 ; same marks in
Gospel and epistle of, 311; Gos-
pel of, 152, 222, 261, 273, 309;
reason for composition of, 153;
commentary on, by Origen, 271;
compared with the Apocalypse
by Dionysius, 310; Eirst Epistle
of, 173, 222, 309; a part of the
N. T. Canon, 156; Second and
Third Epistles of, placed among
the Antilegomena, 156; discussed
by Dionysius, 310; Acts of, 157;
Apocalypse of, work on, by Mel-
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
621
ito, 204; spoken of, by Irenixnis,
222; by Apollonius, 236; by
Origen, 273; by Nepos, 308; by
Dionysivis, 309; authorship of,
assigned to Cerinthus, 309; au-
thor of, 310.
John, surnamecl Mark, 310.
John, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
John, the presbyter, friend of Papias,
170 (note 4), 171, 172.
John, a confessor, wonderful memory
of, 355-
Jonathan, the high priest, 123.
Jordan, river, 95, 304.
Joseph, the father of Christ, 91, 92,
94, 95, 104, 146, 223, 264.
Joseph, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Joseph Barsabbas, See Barsablms.
Josephus, 88, 90^ 96, 97, 107; quoted,
89, 94. 95. 98, 108, 109, 1 10, 1 1 1,
112, 122, 127, 138, 139, 260, 319;
testimonies of, in regard to John
the Baptist, and Christ, 97, 98; on
the death of James the Just, 127,
128; work of, on the Jewish
War, 130, 131; life and works
of, 143, 146; O.T. Canon of, 144
Josephus Caiaphas. See Caiaphas.
Joshua, Zt,.
Judah, 89, 90.
Judas (Iscariot), 99, 232.
Judas, candidate with Matthias, 103,
172.
Judas, the prophet, 234.
Judas, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Judas, an ecclesiastical writer, 254.
Judas of Galilee, or Judas the Gaulo-
nite, 88, 89.
Judas Thomas. See Thomas.
Jude, brother of the Lord, 148, 164;
Epistle of, 128, 260, 261 ; placed
among the Antilegomena, 156.
Judea, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 100, 104,
175-
Julian, bishop of Alexandria, 224,
240, 250.
Julian, bishop of Apamea, 233.
Julian I., Gentile bishop of Jerusalem,
226.
Julian II., Gentile bishop of Jerusa-
lem, 226.
Julian, martyr under Decius, 284.
Julian, a Cappadocian martyr, 354.
Juliana, friend of Origen, 264.
Jupiter Philius, 359.
Justin, apology of, quoted, II4, 158,
180, 181, 184, 185, 193, 195, 196,
223; work against Marcion, 184;
against heresies, 1 85 ; martyrdom
of, 193; works of, 196, 197, 208;
speaks of Christ as God, 247.
Justus, bishop of Alexandria, 176.
Justus, bishop of Jerusalem, 166, 176.
Justus of Tiberias, 145.
Justus Barsabbas. See Barsabbas,
KKijpov, used in the sense of " order "
or " class," 213.
Knowledge, "falsely so-called," 81,
178, 221, 317.
Lacedtemonians, 200.
L?etus, governor of Alexandria, 250.
Laity, 286, 287, 289.
Laodicea, 205, 242, 291, 294, 318,
3«9. 320.
Lapsed, the, attitude of Dionysius
toward, 283 (note i), 285 (note
6); attitude of Novatus toward,
286; attitude of Cornelius ami
the church of Rome toward,
2S6; controversy concerning, 293
(note 3).
Laranda, 268.
Larissoeans, 206.
Latronianus, corrector of Sicily, 382.
Lebanon, 355, 375.
Leonides, father of Origen, 249.
Levi, bishop of Jerusalem, 1 76.
Levi, tribe of, 224.
Liberty, full religious, granted by
Constantine and Licinius, 379.
Libya, 300, 301, 355.
Licinius, becomes emperor, 335 ; joins
Galerius in issuing an edict of
toleration, 339; conquers Max-
imin, 363, 366; issues in con-
junction with Constantine an
edict of toleration, 364, 365;
puts to death the favorites and
the children of Maximin, 386;
edict of toleration, text of, 378-
380; plots against Constantine,
384; persecutes the Christians,
384-386; extortions and cruel
laws of, 385 ; conquered by Con-
stantine, 386.
Linus, bishop of Rome, 133, 137, 147,
149, 221.
KSyia, of Papias, 170; of Matthew,
173-
Longinus, a philosopher and rhetori-
cian, 266.
Lucian, presbyter of Antioch, 333,
360, [298].
Lucius (Verus), emperor of Rome,
185, 188.
Lucius, a martyr, 195, 196.
Lucius, bishop of Rome, 293.
Lucius, companion of Dionysius of
Alexandria, 301, 313.
Lucius Quintus, a Roman general, 1 75.
Lucuas, leader of the Jews, 174, 175.
Luke, on the genealogy of Christ, 91,
92, 277; author of the Acts,
89, no, 112, 136; written dur-
ing Paul's imprisonment, 124,
273; parentage and profession of,
136; Gospel of, 136, 137, 153,
222, 273; reason for composition
of the Gospel, 154, 136; tradi-
tional translator of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 169, 261 ; author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews
according to some, 273.
Lupus, governor of Egypt, 1 74.
Lycia, 345.
Lyons, account of Martyrs of, 21 1;
Epistle of Church of, 212, 220.
Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene, 96, 107.
Macar, a Libyan, martyr under Decius,
284.
Macedonian months, table of, 403.
Macedonians, 223.
Machiera, citadel of, 98.
Macrianus, financial minister of Vale-
rian, 298.
Macrinus, becomes emperor, 268,
307-
M:vander, 168, 233.
Magi, the visit of, to Christ, 94.
Magna (iraxia, 226.
Magnesia, 168.
Malchion, a Sophist, opponent of Paul
of Samosata, 313.
Malchus, martyr at Caesarea, under
Valerian, 302.
Mamljre, cak of, 83.
Mamma-a, mother of Emperor Alex-
ander Severus, has an interview
with Origen, 269.
Manes, 316; proclaims himself the
Paraclete, 317.
Manganea, probably northeast of Pal-
estine, 354.
Manichaans, heresy of, 316, 317.
Marcella, mother of Potamiana, mar-
tyrdom of, 253.
Marcellinus, bishop of Rome, 317.
Marcellus, companion of Dionysius
of Alexandria, 300.
Marcian, a friend of Irenaus, 244.
Marcianus, a heretic, 258.
Marcion, asceticism of, 114 (note 18) ;
heresy of, 182, 183, 233; Justin's
work against, 184, 197; meets
Polycarp in Rome, 187, 201;
written against by Theophilus,
202; bylrenaeusandModestus, 203;
byBardesanes, 2io; mentionedby
Tatian, 208 ; work against by
Irenaus, 223; written against
by Rhodo, 227; holds two prin-
ciples, 228; a martyr of the
sect of, at Casarea under Vale-
rian, 302; and in Palestine, 351.
Marcionists, 199.
Marcionites, 233.
Marcius Turbo, a Roman general, 174.
Marcus, bishop of Alexandria, 1S4.
Marcus, first Cientile bishop of Jeru-
salem, 178, 226.
Marcus, addressed by Constantine,
381.
Marcus, the Gnostic, 183.
Marcus Aurelius, 106, 185, 186, iSS,
196, 197, 205, 210, 211, 219, 220,
224; Eusebius' confusion in re-
gard to, discussed, 390, 391.
Mareotis in Egypt, 300, 301.
Mareotis, lake of, 118.
Maria, lake of. See Mareotis.
Marinus of Aries, 381.
Marinus, a martyr at Casarea, 303.
Marinus of Tyre, 294.
Mark, the Evangelist, 128; preaches
in Egypt, 116, 310; interpreter
of Peter, 172, 173, 222; Gos-
pel of, 115, 153, 261, 273; com-
position of Gospel of, 116.
Marriage, pronounced fornication by
Tatian, 208.
Mars, 360.
Atapri/s, 164, 213, 218, 237.
Martyrdom, Dionysius of Alexandria
on, 291.
Martyrdoms, collection of, 211. See
Ancient Martyrdoms,
622
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
Martyrdoms of the Ancients. See
Aitcietit Martyrdoms.
Martyrs, in Palestine, under Diocle-
tian, 342-356; in Alexandria,
under iJecius, 2S3; in Ctesarea,
under Valerian, 302.
Mary, the mother of Christ, 94,
264.
Mary, daughter of Eleazar, 140.
Mary, wife of Clopas, 164.
Masbotheans, Jewish sect, 199.
Masbotheus, a heretic, 199.
Maternus of Cologne, 381.
Mattathias, father of Josephus, 143.
Matthew, the Apostle, 91, 92, 94;
wrote a Hebrew Gospel, 152,
173, 222, 225; Gospel of, iised
by the Ebionites, 159 (note 8),
1 7 1 ; Gospel of, found by Bar-
tholomew in India, 225; Gospel
of, written first in Hebrew, 273;
commentary on Gospel of, by
C)rigen, 279; on the genealogy
of Christ, 91, 92, 277.
Matthias, chosen to the Apostolate,
99, 103, 172; ascetic teaching
of, 161 ; one of the Seventy, 103;
Gospel of, excluded from tlie
Canon, 157.
Matthias, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Maturus, a Gallic witness in the per-
secution under Marcus Aurelius,
213, 215.
Mauritania, 328, 356, 382.
Maxentius, usurps the imperial pur-
ple, 335 (note 21), 336; charac-
ter of, 336; his treatment of
female Christians, 337; defeated
by Constantine, 363, 364.
Maximian, treatment of female Chris-
tians, 332 (note 2) ; fourth edict
of, against Christians, 332 (note
2), 344 (note 2) ; abdication of,
335. 340, 345 ; conspires against
Constantine and meets a shame-
ful death, 336, 340, 364, 366.
Maximilla, Montanist prophetess,
229, 231 (note 18), 232, 233,
234, 236.
Maximinus, bishop of Antioch, 202,
237-
Maximinus I., Roman emperor, 274.
Maximinus H., treatment of female
Christians, 332 (note 2), 337;
seizes the imperial dignity, 336;
character of, 336; persecution
of. 345-355; fifth edict of, 350;
gives vert)al orders \.o relax the
persecution, 357; renews the
persecution, 358-361 ; decree of
against the Christians engraved
on pillars, 360; famine, pesti-
lence, and war, during the reign
of, 362; first edict of toleration,
364, 365; defeated by Licinius,
366; second edict of toleration,
366, 367; death of, 367; honors
of, revoked after his death Ijy
Constantine and Licinius, 368;
children of, put to death, 368.
Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, 299,
300, 301, 302, 313, 321.
Maximus, bishop of Bostra, 312.
Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Maximus, a writer, 245.
Maximus, a Roman confessor, 2S7.
Maxys, a military triljune, 350.
Mazabanes, bishop of Jerusalem, 281,
294, 303-
Melchi, father of Eli, 91, 92, 94.
Melchizedec, 86, 373.
Meletius, bishop in Pontus, 321;
called " honey of Attica," 320.
Melitene, in Cappadocia, 328.
Melitene legion, the so-called " Thun-
dering Legion," 219.
Melito, bishop of Sardis, 1S6; life
and writings of, 198, 203-206,
242, 261; teaches Christ is Gotl
and man, 247.
Menander, the sorcerer, successor of
Simon Magus, 157, 158, 178.
Menandrianists, 199.
Mercuria, martyr under Decius, 284.
Merozanes, bishop of Armenia, 291.
Mesopotamia, 175, 294, 332.
Metras, martyr under Decius, 283.
Metrodorus, Marcionite martyr at
Smyrna, 192.
Micah, the prophet, 94.
Milan, edict of, 379, 3S0.
Miltiades, writings of, 233, 234 ;
writes against Montanists, 234;
speaks of Christ as God, 247.
Miltiades, bishop of Rome, addressed
by Constantine, 381.
Miltiades, a Montanist, 230.
Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of
Asia, receives rescript from
Hadrian in favor of Christians,
181, 182.
Miracles, of the Post-Apostolic age,
221; of Narcissus of Jerusalem,
255-
Moabitess. See Ruth the Moabitess.
Moderatus, a Pythagorean philoso-
pher, 266.
Modestus, 198; writes against Mar-
cion, 203.
Monarchy, work on, by Irenceus, 23S.
Montanism, 103, 207, 229-237, 268.
Montanists, false prophets of, 229.
Montanus, 218, 229, 231—233, 234,
235-
Months, table showing Roman and
Macedonian computations, 403.
Moses, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89,
90, 94, 120, 144, 145, 206, 224,
229, 306, 319, 363, 364; shown
by Tatian to be older than the
most celebrated Greeks, 209,
260; " Harmony of," 267; mur-
mured against, 305.
Moses, a Roman confessor, 289.
MuscEus, 319.
Musanus, 198, 207,
Mysia, 231.
Narcissus, Gentile bishop of Jeru-
salem, 226, 240, 241, 244, 257;
miracles of, 255; goes into re-
tirement, 256; comes out of
retirement, 256.
Natalius, bishop of the sect of Tlico-
dutus, 247.
Nathan, son of David, 91, 92, 94.
Nature, work on, by Dionysius, 311.
Nave, father of Joshua, 85.
Nazara, a village of Judea, 93.
Nazarenes, Gospel of, 168 (note 15).
Nebuchadnezzar, 224.
Nemesion, an Eg)'ptian, martyr under
Decius, 285.
Neon, 268.
Neo-Platonism, 264 (note i).
Nepos, schism of, 308, 309.
Nero, succeeds Clauilius, 122; more
cruel in his later years, 125 ; per-
secutions and crimes of, 128, 129,
130, 133. 13S. 147. 149, 163, 205.
Nerva, becomes emperor, 1 49.
New Testament Canon, 133, 155,
273.
Nicetes, father of the Eirenarch
Herod, 190, 191.
Nicolaitans. See Nicolatts, sect of.
Nicolaus, sect of, 161.
Nicomachus, a Pythagorean philoso-
pher, 266.
Nicomas, bishop of Iconium in Lyca-
onia, 312, 313.
Nicomedia, 333, 360, 365; persecu-
tions in, under Diocletian, 326,
327, 328; fire in palace of, 327.
Nicomedians, 201.
Nicopolis, near Actium, 263.
Nilus, in Egj-pt, 285.
Nilus, an Egyptian bishop and martyr,
334, 355-
Noah, 87, 306.
v6Qos, Eusebius' use of, 128 (note 46),
155 (note i).
Nomes, of Egypt, 1 1 8.
Novatian. See Novaius.
Novatus, 294; schism of, 2S6-292,
296; attitude of, toward the
lapsed, 286; Cornelius writes
epistles concerning, 286; epistle
of Cyprian concerning, 286;
character of, according to Corne-
lius, 287; character of, 287 (note
13); ordination of, to the epis-
copate, 288, 290 ; addressed by
Dionysius, 290, 291 ; attitude of,
toward Catholic baptism, 297.
Novatus, a presbyter of Carthage,
289 (note 29).
Numenius, a philosopher and rhetori-
cian, 266.
Numerianus, becomes emperor, 316.
Nuinidia, 382.
Oblias (James the Just), 125.
fEdipodean intercourse, 213.
Ogdoad, work on, by Irenaeus, 238.
oiKovofAa. See Dispensation of Christ.
Old Testament Canon, according to
Josephus, 144, 155, 206; accord-
ing to Melito, 206; according to
Origen, 272; used by the Elke-
sites, 280.
Olympiads, no.
Onesimus, pastor of church of Ephe-
sus, 1 68.
Onesinms, addressed by Melito, 206.
Ophites, immorality of, 1 14 (note 18).
( )racles of the Lord. See Ao7ia.
Oracles of Matthew. See KSyia.
i\
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
623
Origen, quoted, 133,264; training of,
249; eager for martyrdom, 250;
proficient in the Scriptures wliile
yet a l)oy, 250 ; refuses to join in
prayer \\ith heretics, 250; takes
charge of the catechetical school
of Alexandria, 251; proficiency
in secular literature, 251; shows
bravery during the persecution,
but escapes all harm, 251 ; asceti-
cism of, 252; pupils of, suffering
martyrdom, 252; studies under
Clement, 253; makes himself a
eunuch, 254; ordained a presliy-
ter, 255, 271; accused by Deme-
trius, 255; addressed by Alexan-
der, 261; earnest study of the
Scriptures, 262; his Hexapla,
263 ; his Tetrapla, 263 ; his
learning attracts many students,
including heretics and philoso-
phers, 264; slandered by Por-
phyry, 265 ; allegorical inter-
pretation of the Scriptures, 266
(note i); proficiency in Grecian
learning, 267 ; visits Arabia,
267; preaches in Cnjsarea, 267;
visits Mammixja, mother of Em-
peror Alexander Severus, at
Antioch, 269; his great zeal in
composing commentaries, 271;
commentaries prepared by him
at Alexandria, 271 ; visits Greece
on ecclesiastical business, 271 ;
passes through Palestine, 271;
commentary on the Gospel of
John, 271 ; on Genesis, 271, 272;
on the Psalms, 272; on Lamen-
tations, 272; works on the Resur-
rection, 272; De Priiicipiis, 272;
his Old Testament Canon, 272;
friendship of Palestinian bishops
towards, 274; work on martyr-
dom, 274; pupils of, in Coesarea,
275 ; epistle of, to Africanus, 276;
his commentaries, composed in
Ci^sarea in Palestine, 277; on
Isaiah, 277; on Ezekiel, 277;
second visit to Athens, 277; on
the Song of Songs, 277; brings
Beryllus back to the orthodox
faith, 277; apology for, by Euse-
bius and Pamphilus, 271, 278;
work of, against Celsus, 278; per-
mits his discourses to be taken
by stenographers, 278; commen-
taries of, on Matthew and the
minor prophets, 279; various
epistles of, 279; heals dissension
of the Arabians, 279; on the
Elkesites, 280; sufferings of, in
persecution under Decius, 281 ;
addressed by Dionysius on the
subject of martyrdom, 291 ; school
of, 303; life and writings of, dis-
cussed, 391-394; relations of,
with Demetrius, discussed, 394,
395; visit to Greece, cause and
date of, discussed, 395-397; final
departure of, from Alexandria
discussed, 395-397; ordination
of discussed, 397; death, 293.
Osrhoene, 242.
Osrha^iians, Gospel preached to, 104.
Otho, Roman emperor, 13S.
Otrous, or ( >trys, in Phrygia, 230.
Pachymius, Egyptian bishop and mar-
tyr, 334-
P;v!sis, a martyr, 345.
PagLC\ in Lycia, 345.
Palestine, 92, 93, 185, 226, 240, 241,
244, 254, 267, 271, 277, 280, 291,
302, 303, 320, 328, 343, 344, 347,
348. 350. 355; martyrs of, 342-
356-
Palmas, bishop of Amastris, 201, 242.
Pamphilus, presljyter of Ca:sarea, 320,
334; Eusebius' Life of, 277;
library of, in Coesarea, 277, 278;
tortured, 348; martyrdom of,
351-354-
Pamphylia, 310.
Paneas. See Ccvsarea Philippi.
Panegyric of Eusebius on the build-
ing of the churches, 370-378.
Panius Mountain, source of the Jor-
dan, 304.
Pantajnus, the Philosopher, 224, 225,
253. 259, 261, 267.
Paphos, 310.
Papias, of Hierapolis, 116, 166;
writings of, 170; quoted, 172-
174; not a hearer of the Apos-
tles, 170; hearer of Aristion and
the Presbyter John, 171; of lim-
ited understanding, 172; a chili-
ast, 172.
Papirius, a martyr, 242.
Papylus, a martyr, 193.
Paraclete, the, 229; Manes proclaims
himself to be the, 317.
Paraatonium, 301.
Parthia, 132.
Parthicus, 90,
Paschal Canon, of Hippolytus, 270;
of Dionysius, 305 ; of Anatolius,
319-
Paschal controversy. See Passover.
Passover, work on, by Melito, 205;
controversy concerning the, 241-
244; agreement in regard to,
reached, 244; Clement's work on,
259, 260.
Patermuthius, a martyr, 355.
Patmos, 310.
Patricius, vicar of the prefects, 383.
Paul, the Apostle, 99, 226, 246, 283,
304, 310; mentions James the
Just, 104; persecutor of Chris-
tians, 104; appointed an Apos-
tle, 105; called "prophet," 107,
no, 113; preaches from Jerusa-
lem to Illyricum, 121, 132, 136,
273; sent to Rome as captive,
123, 125; release, second impris-
onment, 124; death of, 128, 129,
130, 132; burial place of, 1 30;
founds churches at Corinth,
Rome, Ephesus; 130, 222, 150;
fellow-laborers mentioned, 136,
137; mentions Luke's Gospel,
137, 149, 154, 273; married, 161,
1 68; rejected by the Severians,
209; rejected by the Elkesites,
280; quoted, 352; Epistles of,
134, 152, 168; Epistles of, a part
f)f the N. T. Canon, 155; Epis-
tles to Timothy, 124, 133; not
author of Epistle to the Hebrews,
135; writes to Hebrews in his
native tongue, i6g, 174, 187,
201 ; author of Epistle to the
Hebrews according to Clement,
261 ; according to the Ancients,
273; Acts of, 135; placed among
the Antilegomena, 156.
Paul, an Antiochian heretic, 250.
Paul, a martyr of Casarea, 349.
Paul, companion of Dionysius of Al-
exandria, 282, 301.
Paul of Jamna, a martyr, 352.
Paul of Samosata, 246; character of,
315, 316; heresy of, 312-316,
318; refuted by Malchion, 313;
excommunicated, 313; Epistle
of the bishops against, 3 13-31 5;
Synod held against, 320.
Paulinus of Iconium, 268.
Paulinus of Tyre, 369; the tenth
book of the Church History in-
scribed to, 369; Eusebius' pane-
gyric addressed to, 370 ; builder
of the great church of Tyre,
370 sq.
Peace after the great persecution,
369 sq ; finally assured to the
Christians after the defeat of Li-
cinius, 387.
Peleus, Egyptian bishop and martyr,
334, 355-
Pella, a town in Perea, 13S, 177.
Penance, rules for, in the early
Church, 278.
Pentapolis, 295, 311.
Pepuza, in Phrygia, named Jerusalem
by Montanus, 235, 236.
Perea, 122 b.
Perennius, a Roman judge, 239, 240.
Perga, in Pamphylia, 310.
Pergamos, 192, 213.
Persecution under Trajan, 165; under
Severus, 249, 251; under Maxi-
minus, 274; under Decius, 280-
286; followed by peace, 294;
under Valerian, 298-302; under
Diocletian, 316, 317, 322, 323-
356; under Licinius, 384-386;
causes of persecution under Di-
ocletian, discussed, 397-400.
Persia, 317.
Persians, 224.
Pertinax becomes emperor, 245.
Pestilence in Alexandria, 306, 307.
Peter, the Apostle, 99, 104, 226, 258,
261, 304, 310, 311; detects
Simon Magus, 105, 115; instructs
Cornelius, 107; imprisoned, ill;
preaches in Rome, 115, 116;
authorizes Mark's Gospel, 116,
261, 273; meets Philo in Rome,
117; death of, 129, 130, 162,
166; burial-place of, 130, 162;
with Paul, founds churches of
Rome and Corinth, 130, 222;
Linussucceedshimat Rome, 137;
Ignatius succeeds him at (?) An-
tioch, 166 ; preaches in Pontus,
etc., 132, 136; martyrdomofwife,
162; writings, 133, 134, 149, 170;
624
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
First Epistle of, Ii6, 122, 133,
173, 222, 273; a part of the
N,T. Canon, 156; Second Epis-
tle of, 133.273; "Acts of," 133;
"Apocalypse of," 134, 261;
Apocalypse of, placed among the
v69oi, 156; "Gospel of," 133,
258; Gospel of, excluded from
the Canon, 157; "Preaching of,"
133; "Teaching of," 168 (note
15), 171, 172, 173, 174.
Peter, bishop of Alexandria, 322, 334,
360.
Peter, companion of Dionysius of
Alexandria, 282, 301.
Peter, a member of Diocletian's house-
hold, 327.
Peter Apselanius, a martyr, 351.
Petra, 97.
Peucetius, a favorite of Maximin,
368.
Pharno, mines of, 334, 348.
Pharaoh, 306, 363.
Pharisee, 89, 199.
Philadelphia, 16S, 192.
Phileas, bishop of Thmuis, Epistle
of, quoted, 330; martyrdom of,
330. 334-
Philemon, a Roman presbyter ad-
dressed by Dionysius of Alex-
andria, 295.
Philetus, bishop of Antioch, 269, 271.
Philip, the Tetrarch, 96, 107.
Philip, the Asiarch, 190.
Philij), bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Philip of Gortyna, 198, 201 ; writes
against Marcion, 203.
Philip of Arabia, Roman emperor,
reported to have been a Chris-
tian and to have done penance,
278; Origen's Epistle to, 279;
slain, 280.
Philip, son of Emperor Philip, 278.
Philip, one of the Twelve, 242;
preaches in Samaria, 104; en-
counters Simon Magus, 105; in-
structs Ethiopian eunuch, 105;
married, 161 ; confounded with
Philiji, the Evangelist, 162, 171 ;
burial-place of, 162; daughters
of, 162, 169, 172, 234, 242.
Philip, the Evangelist, confounded
with Philip, the Apostle, 162,
171 ; death of, and of his daugh-
ters, 163, 242; resided at Hier-
apolis, 172, 242.
Philippians, 168; Polycarp's Epistle
to, 188.
Philo, of Alexandria, family and cul-
ture of, 107; embassy to Rome,
108; on the Embassy, 109; on
the Virtues, 109; meets Peter in
Rome, 117; describes the Thera-
peutLTC, 1 1 7-1 19; De Vita Con-
teinplaliva, 117; writings of,
119-121; reads his "On the
Virtues" before Roman Sen-
ate, 121; referred to by Clem-
ent of Alexandria, 260; by Ana-
tolius, 319.
I'hilomclium, letter to church of, 188.
Philoromus, a martyr in the persecu-
tion under Diocletian, 330.
Philosophical mode of life, in sense
of asceticism, 117, 169, 252, 256.
Philosophy, used in sense of asceti-
cism. See the preceding.
Philumene, virgin and companion of
Apelles, 227.
Phoenicia, 104, 328, 359, 360, 370;
niartyrs in, 333, 345.
Phoenicians, 304.
Phrygia, 212, 218, 219, 229, 230, 231,
235; burning of an entire city
of, during Diocletian's persecu-
tion, 331, 332.
Phrygian heresy. See Montanism.
Pierius, presbyter of Alexandria, 321,
322.
Pilate, procuratorship of, 96; con-
demns Christ, 98; reports to Ti-
berius, 105; tyranny of, 109;
stirs up tumult among the Jews,
109, iio; suicide of, no (note
l) ; forged acts of, 96, 359, 360;
Christ crucified under, 222.
Pinnas, bishop, addressed by the Em-
peror Gallienus, 302.
Pinytus, bishop of Crete, 197, 201.
Pionius, a martyr, 192.
Pius, bishop of Rome, 182, 183, 221,
243-
Pius, emperor of Rome. See Antoni-
nus Pius.
Plato, 181, 266.
Plinius Secundus, governor of Bithy-
nia, writes concerning Christians,
164.
Plutarch, pupil of Origen, 25 1; mar-
tyrdom i)f, 252.
Polybius, bishop of Tralles, 168.
Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, 161, 166,
167, 168, 170, 187, 188, 220, 238,
239, 242, 243; martyrdom of,
188-192; communes with Anice-
tus and administers the eucharist
in Rome, 244.
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, quoted,
162, 240; on the Paschal con-
troversy, 242.
Pompey, the Roman general, 90, 92.
Pontianus, bishop of Rome, 271,
^74-
Ponticus, a Gallic witness in the per-
secution under Marcus Aurelius,
216.
Pontius, addressed by Serapion, 237,
258.
Pontius Pilate. See Pilate.
Pontus, 132, 136, 183, 184, 188, 201,
223, 242, 276, 294, 303, 312, 321,
ZZT,^ 345. 386.
Porphyry, a martyr, 353; his death
reported to Pamphilus by Seleu-
cus, 353.
Porphyry, the Neo-Platonist, 264;
gives account of Origen, 265;
writes against the Christians, 265,
266.
Potamiacna, martyrdom of, 253.
Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, a Gallic
witness in the persecution under
Marcus Aurelius, 214, 220.
Potitus, a Marcionite, 228.
Pre-existence of Christ, discussed by
Eusebius, 82, 85.
Preparation, day of, 346, 347 (note 8).
Presbyter, nature of office of, in the
early church, 150 (note 14);
ancient, 261; office mentioned,
223, 243, 2S6, 287, 290, 301, 305,
1>\1„ 320.
irpea^vrepos, used in an unofficial
sense, 278 (note 5).
Primus, bishop of Alexandria, 174,
176.
Primus, bishop of Corinth, 198.
Prisca, wife of Diocletian, friendly to-
ward Christians, 323 (note 2).
Priscilla, 121.
Priscilla, Montanist prophetess, 229,
231 (note 18), 235, 237.
Priscus, father of Justin, 185.
Priscus, martyr at Ciesarea under Va-
lerian, 302.
Probus, Roman emperor, 316.
Probus, a martyr, 351.
Proclus, opponent of Caius, 163.
Proclus, an ecclesiastic, 313.
Proclus, a Montanist, and an opponent
of Caius of Rome, 130, 163, 268.
Procopius, a Palestinian martyr, 342.
Prophets, from Jerusalem, 107.
Proselyte, Jewish, 93.
Protoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea,
274.
Protogenes, 313.
Proverbs of Solomon, called "All-
virtuous Wisdom," 200.
Psalms, celebrating Christ as God,
247; Hexapla of the, 263.
PtolemKus, a martyr, 195.
Ptolemais, in Pentapolis, 244, 295.
Ptolemies of Egypt, close of dynasty
of, 88.
Ptolemy, martyr under Decius, 285.
Ptolemy Lagus, king of Egypt, 223.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, 319.
Publius, liishop of Athens, 200.
Publius, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem,
226.
Pyrucheium, siege of, 318.
Pythagoras, 179
Pythagorean, a famous, 266.
Quadratus, the Apologist, 175.
Quadratus, Inshop of Athens, 2CX).
(Quadratus, the prophet, 169, 234,
Quinta, martyr under Decius, 283.
Quintus, a Phrygian, 189.
Rechabites, 126.
Regeneration, 376.
Remission of sins, according to the
Elkesites, 280.
Repentance, Dionysius of Alexandria
on, 291, 292.
Resurrection, 376.
Retecius of Autun, 381.
Revelation. See Apocalypse of John.
Rhodo of Asia, writes against Mar-
cion, 227; quoted, 228, 229.
Rhone, river, 211.
Rhossus, in Syria, 258.
Roman church, 225, 242, 271, 286,
290, 312, 317.
Roman emperors, table of, 401.
Roman empire, 89, 90, loi, 223.
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
623
Roman learning, 276.
Romans, Epistle to, integrity of, 1 35,
203, 205; relation of the last
chapter to the remainder of the
epistle, 3SS.
Romanus, a martyr, 343.
Rome, 106, 167, 168, 169, 183, 186,
197, 198, 210, 219, 220, 228, 239,
241, 243, 246, 261, 2(12, 3S1, 382;
Peter and Simon Magus in, 115;
gathering place of heretics, 1 15
(note 6) ; origin of church of,
115 (note l); church of, founded
by Peter and Paul, 130, 222;
Linus, first bishop of, 133; church
of, disputes epistle to the lie-
brews, 135; lilierality of church
of, 201 ; list of early bishops of,
174 (note l), 175; bishops of,
during reign of Antoninus Pius,
182; IrenxHis' catalogue of bish-
ops of, 221; table of bishops of,
during the first three centuries,
401.
Romulus, a martyr, 345.
Rufus, governor of Judea, 16S, 177.
Ruth, the Moabitess, 93, 206.
Sabbath, Dionysius on the, 307.
Sabellius, heresy of, 295; epistles of
Dionysius against, 311.
Sabinus, prefect of Egypt under De-
cius, 282, 301.
Sabinus, an imperial official under
Maximin, epistle of, to the pro-
vincial governors in regard to the
Christians, 357, 358, 364.
Sadducees, most cruel of all the Jews,
127; Jewish sect, 199.
Sadduchus, a Pharisee, 89.
Sagaris, martyrdom of, 205, 242.
Salome, sister of Herod the Great,
95-
Samaria, 104.
Samaritans, Jewish sect, 199.
Samosata, 246, 312-316.
Samuel, 352.
Sanctus, one of the Gallic witnesses
in the persecution under Marcus
Aurelius, 213, 214, 215.
Saracens, enslave fugitive Christians,
285.
Sard is, 1S6, 203, 242.
Sarmatians, 219.
Saturnilians, 199.
Saturninus, the Gnostic, 178, 208; as-
ceticism of, 114 (note 18).
Saul, king of Israel, 90.
Scriptures, Irenssus' account of, 222;
allegorical interpretation of, 266
Scythia, 132.
Seal, ((r(ppayis^. See Baptism.
Sects, the seven, among the Jews, 199.
Sejanus, 109.
Seleucus, a martyr, 353.
Senate, the Roman, 105.
Seneca, bishop of Jerusalem, 176,
Septuagint, composition of, 223, 319;
Origen's study of, 262; edited
by Origen, 263.
Serapion, bishop of Antioch, writings
of, 257; writes against Monta-
nists, 237, 240, 257, 258.
VOL. I.
Serapion, martyr under Dccius, 283.
Serapion, an aged iieliever uf Alexan-
dria, 290.
Serennius Granianus, proconsul of
Asia, 181, 182.
Serenus, pujiil of Origen, suffers mar-
tyrtlom by lire, 252.
Serenus, another pupil of Origen, is
beheaded, 252.
Servilius Paulus, proconsul of Asia,
205.
Seven, the, appointment of, 103, 104;
not deacons, but elders, 103
(note 2^), 163.
Seventy, the, 97, 98, lOO, loi, 103,
104, 152.
Severa, wife of Emperor Philip, Ori-
gen's epistle to, 279.
Severians. See Severus.
Severus, a heretic, 209.
Severus, Roman emperor, 245, 247,
249, 254, 255, 263.
Sextus, an ecclesiastical writer, 245.
Shepherd of Hernias. See Hennas.
Sicily, 356, 364, 382.
Sidon, 333.
Sidonius, a Roman confessor, 287.
Silas, companion of Paul, 234.
Silvanus, bishop of Emesa, 333, 360.
Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, 334, 348,
355-
Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, 146, 149,
176, 199; martyrdom of, 163, 164;
date of martyrdom of, 164, 166.
Simon, the high priest, 97.
Simon Barjona, 310.
Simon Magus, attracted by Philip,
104; reputation of, 105; the
"great power of God," 105; pre-
tends conversion, 105; baptism
of, 105; detected and rebuked
by Peter, 105, 115; denounced
in Justin's Apology, 114; hon-
ored with statue in Rome, 114;
meets Peter at Rome, 115 ; de-
stroyed, 116; author of heresies,
114, 1 58, 178, 183, 199.
Simonians, immorality of, 1 14, 199.
Sion, Mount, 352.
Sixtus. See Xystus.
Smyrna, 165, 167, 168, 187, 188, 192;
letter of church of, to the church
of Philomelium, 188 j^.
Socrates, the philosopher, quoted, 194.
Socrates, bishop of Laodicea, 318.
Sodom, 83.
Solomon, 91, 94, 200, 206, 223, 244,
260, 370.
Song of Songs, commentary on, by
Origen, 277.
Sophists, 313.
Sosthenes, a companion of Paul, 99.
Sotas, bishop of Anchialus, 237.
Soter, bishop of Rome, 197, 199, 201,
210, 211, 221, 243.
Spain, 356.
Statins Quadratus, proconsul of Asia,
189 (note 9).
Statue, erected by the woman with an
issue of blood, 304.
Stephen, one of the Seven, 104, 161,
218; martyrdom of, 104, 107, 138.
Stephen, bishop of Laodicea, 320,
S S
Stephen, bishop of Rome, on the re-
baptism of the lapsed, 293, 294,
295-
Stocks, the, 193, 214, 281, 331, 343.
344-
Stoics, some famous ones referred to,
266.
Strato's Tower, iii.
Stromata. See Clement of Alexan-
dria.
Sub-deacons, 288.
Subintroductce, 315.
Suicide of women, to escape defile-
ment, 332, 337; opinions of the
feathers in regard to, 333 (note
3)-
Susannah, story of, fictitious, accord-
ing to Africanus, 276.
Symmachus, bishop of Jerusrdem, 226.
Symmachus, translator of the Old Tes-
tament, 262, 263, 264; an Ebi-
onite, 264.
Synada, in Phrygia, 268; synod of, 269.
Syneros, a Marcionite, 228.
Synod, at Rome, in behalf of the unity
of the Church on occasion of the
Donatist schism, 380, 381; at
Aries, summoned by Constantine,
38 1, 382.
Syracuse, 381.
Syria, 88, 89, 167, 168, 178, 185, 294,
302, 318, 328, 355.
Taposiris, near Alexandria, 282.
Tarsus, 291, 294, 312, 314.
Tatian, asceticism of, 114 (note 18);
authority for martyrdom of Jus-
tin, 194; life and writings of,
207-209; heresy of, 207-209:
his Book of Problems, 228, 229;
instructor of Rhodo at Rome,
227, 228; speaks of Christ as
God, 247; mentioned by Clem-
ent of Alexandria, 260.
Teaching of Peter. See Peter.
Telesphorus, bishop of Rome, 177,
182, 221, 243. >•
Telesphorus, addressed by Dionysius,
3"-
Temptations, work on, by Dionysius,
3"-
Tertullian, family and culture of, 106;
apology for Christians, 105; on
Nero, 129; quoted, 149, 165;
narrates the story of the Thun-
dering Legion, 220.
Tetrapla, of Origen, 263.
Thaddeus, one of the " Seventy," 99;
in Edessa, 100-102, 104.
Thaumaturgus. See Gregoty Than-
mattirgns.
Thebais, 249, 328, 329, 334, 349, 350.
Thebuthis, a heretic, 199.
Thecla, a martyr, 344, 347.
Thelymidres, bishop of Laodicea, 291,
294.
Themiso, a Montanist, 233, 235.
Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea in
Palestine, 268, 274, 291, 294, 303.
Theodulus, a martyr, 353.
Theodorus. See Gregory Thau-
maturgus.
Theodorus, of Synada, 268.
626
INDEX TO THE CHURCH HISTORY.
Theodorus, an ecclesiastic, 313.
Theodorus, Egyptian bishop and
martyr, 334.
Theodosia, a martyr, 348.
Theodotion, translator of the Old
Testament, 262, 263.
Theodotion of Ephesus, 223.
Theodotus, bishop of Laodicea, 320.
Theodotus, a Montanist, 218, 232.
Theodotus, the elder, the cobbler,
247, 248.
Theodotus, the younger, the banker,
247.
&(o\oyia. See Divittiiy of Christ.
Theonas, bishop of Alexandria, 321.
Theophanies, to l^e regarded as ap-
pearances of Christ, 83.
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, 197,
202.
Theophilus, bishop of Csesarea, 240,
241, 244, 313.
Theophilus, martyr under Decius,
285.
Theophrastus, admired by the Theo-
dotians, 248.
Theotecnus, bishop of Cassarea, 303,
312, 313, 320.
Theotecnus, curator of Antioch, 358;
death of, 368.
Therapeutre, described by Philo, 117-
119.
Thessalonians, 206.
Theudas, the Impostor, 112, 113.
Thomas, the apostle, loo, loi ; sends
Thaddeus to Edessa, 104; labors
in Parthia, 132; Gospel of, ex-
cluded from the canon, 157, 171.
Thrace, 237.
Thraseas, bishop and martyr of Eu-
menia, 236, 242.
" Thundering Legion," story of, 220.
Thyestean banquets, 213.
Tiberias, 145.
Tiberius, emperor of Rome, 96; re-
ception of Pilate's report, 105,
106; favors Christianity, 106;
death of, 109.
Timreus, bishop of Antioch, 317.
Timolaus, a martyr, 345.
Timotheus, a martyr, 344.
Timothy, Paul's Epistles to, 124, 133,
137, 221; first bishop of Ephe-
sus, 136.
Timothy, companion of Dionysius of
Alexandria, 282, 311.
Titus, first bishop of Crete, 136.
Titus, son of Vespasian, conducts war
against Jews, 138, 146; becomes
emperor, 147.
Tobias, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Tobias of Edessa, loi.
Tobias, the father of the former, loi.
Trajan, Roman emperor, 149, 150,
164, 173, 175, 220; forbids Chris-
tians to be sought after, 164-166.
Tralles, 168.
Tripolis, 345.
Troas, 168.
" True Discourse," Origen's work
against Celsus, 278.
Trypho, the Jew, Dialogue of Justin
against, 196, 197.
Twelve (apostles), the, 99; scattered
abroad, 104.
Twelve Prophets, the, commentary
on, by Origen, 279.
Tymium in Phrygia, named Jerusa-
lem by Montanus, 235.
Tyrannion, bishop of Tyre, 333.
Tyrannus, bishop of Antioch, 317.
Tyre, 294, 317, 328, 348, 360; the
great church of, 370 s<j.; de-
scription of the church, 375-
378; Eusebius' panegyric on the
building of the churches deliv-
ered at, 370 sq.
Ulpianus, a martyr, 347.
Urbanus, bishop of Rome, 269, 271.
Urbanus, a Roman confessor, 287.
Urbanus, governor of Palestine, 344,
345. 346, 348, 349-
Urbicius, a Roman governor, 195, 196.
Ursus, finance minister of Africa, 382.
Valens, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem,
226.
Valentina, a martyr of Cresarea, 349.
Valentinians, 199.
Valentinus, the Gnostic, 1S2, 183, 187,
208, 210, 238, 264.
Valeria, daughter of Diocletian, friend-
liness of, toward Christians, 323
(note 3).
Valerian, Roman emperor, at first
friendly to Christians, 298; per-
secution under, 29S-302, 326.
Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea,
97.
Vales, deacon from /Elia, and martyr,
352.
Vatican, 130.
Verissimus (Marcus Aurelius), 185.
Verus, Roman emperor. See Marcus
Aurelius,
Vespasian, emperor, no, 138, 220 ;
besieges the Jews, 127, 131 (note
4), 141, 143; commands to seek
descendants of David, 146, 147.
Vettius Epagathus, one of the Gallic
witnesses, 212.
Veturius, a military commander, 326
(note 2).
Victor, bishop of Rome, letter of
Polycrates to, 162; excommuni-
cates church of Asia, 240, 241,
242, 244, 246, 247; admonished
by Irenajus and others for his
treatment of the Asiatic church,
243.
Vienne, a city of Gaul, 98; account
of martyrs of, 21 1; Epistle of
church of, 212.
Volusian, 298 (note i).
" Wisdom of Solomon." See Solomon.
Witnesses. See ndprvs.
Xerxes, 145.
Xystus I., bishop of Rome, 1 76, 221,
243-
Xystus II., bishop of Rome, 294, 297,
303, 312; receives Epistle on
Baptism from Dionysius, 295, 298
Zacchceus, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Zacchceus, a martyr, 343.
Zacharias, 212, 213.
ZambdaS; bishop of Jerusalem, 321.
Zebedee, father of James and John,
.138, 309-
Zebinas, a martyr, 350.
Zebinus, bishop of Antioch, 271, 275.
Zeno, martyr under Decius, 285.
Zenobius, presbyter of Sidon, 333.
Zenobius, physician and martyr, 334.
Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, 130,
246, 247, 248, 261, 268.
Zerubabel, 371, 374.
Zeus. See Jupiter,
Zion, mount of, 378.
Zosimus, 168.
Zoticus, bishop of Comana, 233, 236.
Zoticus, of Otrous, 230.
INDEX TO
THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, &c., BY EUSEBIUS.
Note. — The references to prolegomena and notes are in italics.
Al'/avius, letter of C. to, 437.
" Aborigines," 602.
Abraham at Mamljre, 533.
Acacius, Count, 533, 538.
Accident, 564, 565.
Achaian bishops at Nicrea, 521.
Acheron, 567.
Achilles, 577.
Acrostic " Jesus Christ, Son of God,
Saviour, Cross," 574.
Adrianople, battle of, 418.
Advent of Christ predicted, 573.
Aegae, 535.
Aelafius = Ablavius.
Aesculapius, 601 ; Temple of, 535.
Aetius, letter of C. to, 538.
Africa, controversies in, 516.
Agathangcltis (source), 449.
Alexander of Alexandria, letter of C.
to, 438 ; letter of C. to, 5 1 5 ; ap-
points George of Arethusa, pres-
byter, 538.
Alexander and Arius, origin of con-
troversy between, 516; continu-
ation of, 518.
Alexander of Thessalonica, 551, note.
Alexander the Great, 483.
Alexandria, Arian, controversies at,
515 ; worships at, 546.
Alpheus, letter of C. to, 538.
Amasia of Pontus, cruelties at, 500.
Ainbrosius of Milan (source), 447.
Ainmianiis Marcellinics (source),
448.
Amomum, 576.
Amoses, 602.
Amphiaraus, 601.
Anastasia, 417, note.
Anastasins Bibliothecarius (source),
452.
Ancyrona, 420.
Anna Comnena (source), 454.
Anonymous Acts of ]\Ietrophanes and
Alexander (source), 452.
Anonymous, qui Dionis Cassii histo-
rias continuavit (source), 451.
Anonymus Valesianus (source), 449.
Antioch, church built in 532, 594;
disturbance at by Eustathius,
536.
Anttochtans, letter of C. to, 438.
Antonius, letter to C, and of C. to
him, 439.
Antony, 575.
Anulinus, letters of C. to, 437.
Aphaca in Phcenicia, 534.
Apollo, 512, 534, 574, 601, 602.
Apparition of Constantine's troops,
502.
Arabian bishops at Niccea, 521 ; at
Jerusalem, 551.
Arborius, 429.
Arethusa, 538.
Argo, 577.
Arius, letters of C. to, 43S, 439;
controversies concerning, at Al-
exandria, 515; letter of C. to,
. 515-
Arius and Alexander, origin of con-
troversy between, 516; continu-
ation of controversy, 518.
Aries, Council of, 417 note.
Asian bishops at Niccea, 521.
Assyria, laws of, 573.
Assyrian Empire, overthrow of, 574.
Assyrians, 576.
Atlianasius, letters of C. to, 439;
(source), 446.
Attaliata, Mic/url (source), 453.
Aiigustinus (source), 4^J.
Augustus, 575.
Aurelian, 579.
Babylon, 573.
Bacchus, 590, 601.
Bacchus, Omadian, 602.
Banquet given to bishops at Nicsea,
523> 524-
Baptism (mythical) of C, 439.
Baptism of C., 556.
Bassianus, 41 7, note.
Bethlehem, erection of church in,
530, 531. 594-
Bindings, elaborate, 549.
" Bishop," C. as, 546.
Bithynian bishops at Jerusalem, 551.
Blemmyans, 483, 542.
Brescia, battle of, 416.
Britannic ocean, 507.
Britons, 483, 489, 553.
Bructeri, 413.
Byzantium, 418; becomes Constan-
tinople, 419.
CcEcilianus, letter of C. to, 437.
Calendarium Romanum Constantine
Magni (source), 448.
Calocizrtts, revolt of, 420.
Cambyses, 574.
Cantacuzenus, Joannes (source), 454.
Cappadocian bishops at NicKa, 521.
Cappadocian bishops at Jerusalem,
551- .
Carthagenians, 602.
Cassiodorus (source), 415.
Cataphrygians, 539.
Catholicus, 549.
Cave of the nativity, 530.
Cave of the ascension, 530, 594.
Cedrenus, Georgius (source), 453.
Cemeteries, 510.
Ceres, 590, 601.
Chalcedon, 419.
Chance, 565.
Chastity, esteem among Christians,
492.
Childless persons, law concerning, 546.
Chios, 602.
Chrestus, letter of C. to, 437.
Christ appears to C. in a dream,
490; the Son of God, 563; the
creator of all things, 563; com-
ing of in the flesh, 568; is
God, and the Son of God,
568; miraculous conception of,
569; the Preserver, 569; doc-
trines and miracles of, 572;
teaching of, 572; coming of,
predicted, 573; cares for Daniel,
574; prophesied by the Sibyl,
575; miraculous birth of, 575,
576; divinity of, 576, 577; the
author of Constantine's victories,
578; the Son of God, 578. See
under Word.
Christian Conduct, 578.
Christians promoted to office, 511;
persecution of, 496, 497; cf. per-
secution, 512-13; kindly received
by barbarians, 513; in Persia,
542; not to be held slaves by
Jews, 547; hypocritical Chris-
tians, 554.
Chronicon Paschale (source), 451.
Chrysopolis, battle of, 419.
Church, the, appeal to, 562; heir to
the property of those dying with-
out kindred, 509.
Church of the Apostles (see Constan-
tinople) .
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. See
Holy Sepulchre,
628
INDEX TO LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, &c.
Church festivals, honored by C, 545.
Churches built at Constantinople,
532; restoration of property to,
510; building of, 51 1 ct pass.
Cicero, 575.
Cilicia, demon worship in, 535.
Cilician bishops at Nicsea, 521; at
Jerusalem, 551.
Codiniis (source), 454.
Coins, 544, 559.
Cole, Old A'iiig, mythical grandfather
o/C, 441.
Confessors, 508; laws in favor of,
505 ; property of, 509.
Constans, made consid, 419, 420; ap-
pointed CcEsar, 550, 584.
Constantia, marriage, 417; asks to
have Licinius spared, 419.
Constantin, city of, 549, 550.
CONSTANTINE.
EVENTS, ACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES.
Early years, 411 sq. ; name, 411 and
note; sur named Great, 41 1;
date of birth, 41 1 and note ; horn
at Naissus, 411 and note ; son of
Constantius Chlorus atid Helena,
41 1; brought tip at Drcpanuin,
411 ; sent to court of Diocletian,
412; takes part in various cain-
taigns, 412; with Diocletian in
Egypt, 412; alliance with Miner-
vina, 412 and note ; at AHcome-
dia, 412; at abdication of Diocle-
tian and Maximinus, 412;
physique of, 412; courage of, 412;
created tribune of first order, 412;
nominated Ccesar by Diocletian,
rejected by Galerius, 412; death
sought by Galerius, 412; gains
permission to go, 412; maims
post horses, 412; joins his father
at Boulogne, 412; accompanies
him to Britain, 412; named as
successor by Constantius at York,
412; proclaimed Augustus, 413,
414; supported by Eroctts, 413;
claims title from Galerius, 413;
is given title of Ccvsar, 413; war
against France, 413; against
Bructeri, 413; exposes captives
to tuild beasts, 413; C. and
Maximimts, named " sons of the
emperors,'^ 413; acknozoledged
emperor by Galerius, 413; mar-
ries Fausta, 414; plot of Maxim-
ian, 413; capture of Alaximian,
413; another plot, 4\y, saved by
Fausta, 413; puts IMaximian to
death, 413; internal improve-
ments, 413; favors the Christians,
414; writes to Maximinus in
their behalf, 414; named Augus-
tus by Maximian, 414; campaign
against Maxentius and capture
of Rome, 416, 417; returns to
Milan, 417; marriage of Con-
stantia, 417; edict of Milan, 417
and note ; returns to Gaul, 417;
C. and the Donatists, 417 and
note ; falls out with Licinius,
417 and note ; defeats of Licinius
at Cibalis and Alardia, and re-
distribtttion of territory, 418;
Decennalia, 418; at Aries, 418;
in Dacia and Pannonia, 41 S;
campaign against Sarmatians,
418; warwith Licinius, 41S; de-
feats Licinius, 418, 419; favors
the Christians, 41'); takes part in
Coun cil of Niciva ,419; Vic 01 na-
lia, 419; at Aries and Milan,
419; puts Crispus and others to
death, 419; tricennalia, 420 ; at
yerusalem, 420; death, 420;
burial, 420; myths concerning,
441; C. and his mother Llelcna,
441 ; C. the son of a British prin-
cess, 441, 442; leprosy and bap-
tism, 442; dojiation, 442, 443;
dream, 443; voyage of Llelena,
443, 444; finding of the cross,
444; sword, 445; remorse of,
445; C. and Tiridates, 445;
compared with Cyrus and Alex-
ander the Great, 483, 484; com-
pared with Moses, 585; con-
trasted with Licinius, 496;
contrasted with the persecutors,
519; vicennalia, 481 and note;
tricennalia, 481 ; reigned thirty
years and lived above sixty, 489;
conquered nearly the whole
world, 483; obtains authority
over more nations than any who
had preceded him, 483; eldest
son and successor of Constantius,
487; accompanied Diocletian
to Palestine, 487; plots of Dio-
cletian and Galerius against, 488;
night of, to his father, 488; pres-
ent at death of his father, 487,
488; assumes the purple, 488;
proclaimed Augustus by army,
4S8; resolves to deliver Rome,
489; chooses Christianity, 489;
vision of the cross, 489; has
standard of the cross made, 490,
491; resolves to worship God
and receives instruction, 491 ;
makes ministers his advisers, 491 ;
goes against Maxentius, 491 ;
advances into Italy and thrice
defeats forces of Maxentius, 492;
defeats Maxentius at the Milvian
bridge, 49-?, 493; enters Rome,
493; acts of grace, 494; honors
bishops, 494; builds churches,
494; decennaha, 481, 495; vic-
tories over barljarians, 495;
aroused in Ijehalf of Christians
persecuted l)y Licinius, 500; pre-
pares for war, 501 ; victory of C,
502, 503; lets Licinius escape,
503; prayers in tabernacle, 503,
504; victory, 504; puts Licinius
to death, 504; surnamed Victor,
505, 591; sends Ilosius to Alex-
andria in the interest of peace,
515; anxiety for peace, 516; ad-
justs controversies in Africa, 516;
presides at Council of Nicrea,
521; address to council, 522,
523; brings council to harmony.
523; entertains the bishops, 523;
farewell address to the bishops,
525, 526; honors his mother,
532; subdues Scythians (Goths)
and Sarmatians, 541, 542; affirms
validity of decrees of councils,
547 ; listens standing to Eusebius,
54S; appoints his sons Caesars,
550; founds cities, 550; convenes
council at Tyre, 550; dedicates
church at Jerusalem, 551; di-
vides empire between sons, 553;
mourning at Rome, 558; honor
paid them, 558; length of reign,
554; age at death, 554; war
against Persians, 554; takes
bishops with him, 554; also tent
in the form of a church, 555;
embassy from the Persians, 555;
erects sepulchral monument, 555 ;
sickness at Helenopolis, 555;
proceeds to Nicomedia, 556;
baptism, 556; thanksgiving for
baptism, 556; death, 557; re-
moval of body to Constantinople,
557; burial, 558.
CHARACTER AND RELIGIOUS ACTS.
Character, 420-435; inherited char-
acteristics, 421 ; physical char-
acteristics : height, countenance,
complexion, hair, beard, nose,
eyes, expression, figure, 421;
shoulders, neck, strength, vigor,
bearing, manners, dress, 422;
mental characteristics : educa-
tion, orations, delivery, literary
style, patronage of learning, 422,
423; moral characteristics : en-
ergy, determination, rapidity of
action, impetuosity, courage and
valor, ambitioji, prtidence, pa-
tience, perseverance, steadj'ast-
ness, faithfulness, self-control,
chastity, amiability, mildness,
mercifulness, and forbearance,
kindness, generosity, prodigality,
hospitality, justice, righteousness,
tact, vanity, magnificence, con-
ceit, humility, arrogance(?), jeal-
ousy, suspiciousness, faithlessness ;
as son, husband, father, friend,
as general, legislator, statesman,
423-430; religious characteris-
tics, 430-433; honored by God,
482; the servant of God and
conqueror of nations, 483; pro-
claims name of God in his edicts,
484; emperor by the will of (iod,
489; liberality to poor, 494;
]uesent at synods, 494, 495;
divine manifestation to, 495;
humane treatment of prisoners,
503; declares God to be the au-
thor of his prosperity, 506; cho-
sen by God, 507; exhortation to
worship God, 510; prayers of,
513. 544, 555. 556; piety of, 519,
520; orders erection of church
at Jerusalem, 526, 528; presents
iif, at his vicennalia, 526; builds
churches at Constantinople, 532;
INDEX TO LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, &C.
629
at Nicomedia, 532; abolishes
idolatry at Constantinople, 532;
destroys idol temples, 534, 535;
builds church at Heliopolis, 536;
presents by, 541; remission of
taxes, 541 ; forbids idolatrous
worship, 545; honors martyrs
and church festivals, 545; ob-
servance of Easter, 545 ; requires
soldiers to pray on Sunday, 545 ;
form of prayer given, 545; zeal
in prayer, 545; calls himself a
bishop, 546; prohibits sacrifices,
mystic rites, combats of gladia-
tors, and worship of Nile, 546;
gifts of, to churches, virgins, and
the poor, 547; excessive clem-
ency, 548; rebukes a covetous
man, 548; liberality, 551, 552;
displeased with excessive praise,
552; instructs his children in
politics and religion, 553, 554;
benevolence, 554; vigor of body,
554; builds Church of the Apos-
tles, 555; gifts, 556; honored
by God, 559; surpassed preced-
ing emperors in devotion, 559;
ascribes all things to God, 580;
gifted with divine and human
wisdom, 581; wise, good, just,
585; self-control, 586; abolishes
idolatry, 591, 592; churches
built by, 594.
LAWS, LETTERS, AND WRITINGS.
Laivs and internal improvemenis,
41 S; 'curiiings, 436; oratorical,
436; letters and edicts, 436-440;
/rt!c£/5, 440; 5(1'/^, 440; (spurious)
treaty ivith Sylvester and Tiri-
dates, 439; laws of, 440, 445;
oration to the assemMy of the
saints, prolegomena, 466, 467,
469 ; edicts in favor of confessors,
505; laws concerning martyrs
and concerning ecclesiastical
property, 505; letters of, 506;
rescripts, 506; law respecting
piety, 506, 507; law granting
release from exile, etc., 508; law
forbidding sacrifice, 511 ; letter
to Eusebius concerning the build-
ing of churches, 511 ; law order-
ing building of churches, 51X;
letter to the people of the prov-
inces concerning the error of
polytheism, 512; letter to Alex-
ander and Arius, 515; letter to
churches concerning Council of
NicDea, 524, 525; letters to bish-
ops met at the Council of Nicaea,
526; letters to the Egyptians ex-
horting peace, 526; letter to Eu-
sebius (Macarius) concerning
Mambre, 533; letters to the
Antiochians concerning Eusta-
thius, 536; letter to Antiochians
concerning Eusebius, 536, 537;
letter to the council concerning
the removal of Eusebius from
Csesarea, 538; letter to Eusebius
on his refusing the bishopric of
Antioch, 538; edict against the
heretics, 539; letter to Sapor,
543, 544; law for observance of
Sunday, 544; amends laws con-
cerning the childless and con-
cerning wills, 546; law that no
Christian shall be slave to a Jew,
547; discourses and declama-
tions, 547; oration to the saints,
548; writes to Eusebius concern-
ing Easter, 548, 549; and con-
cerning copies of the Scriptures,
548, 549; letter to Council of
Tyre, 550, 551 ; writings of, 554;
employs himself in compositions,
554; oration of, 561.
ConstantiJie, arch of, 417, note.
Constantine, coins of, 544, 559.
Constantine, life of, by Eusebius, edi-
tions, 466; translations, 466,
467; translation (text), 481.
Constantine, literature on, 455-465.
Constantine, picture of, 520, 544.
Constantine, sources for life, 444-
455-
Constantine, statue of, 493.
Constatitine II. made Cccsar, 418,
550, 584; "duar against Goths,
419.
Constantine, sons of. See Sons of
Constantine.
Constantinople, founding of 419; de-
scription of, 555.
Constantinople, Church of Apostles at,
420.
Constantinople, founding of, viythical
dream of C. concerning, 443.
Constantinople, Church of Apostles,
555; funeral service in, 558.
Constantiims Po rp hy r oge n it us
(source)., 452.
Constantius, son of C, appointed
CiEsar, 550, 584; marriage of,
553; buries his father, 558.
Constantius Chlorus, Emperor, 411;
father of Constantijie, ^ll; hus-
band of Helejia, 411 and note;
made dssar, 4.II, ^I2; divorces
Helena, 412; becomes Augustus,
412, 414; asks to have Constan-
tine sent to him, 412; expedi-
tion to Britain, 412; death at
York, 412, 414; names C. suc-
cessor, 412; internal improve-
ments continued by his son, 414,
note; character, 421, 485 and
note; mildness of rule, 485;
numberless virtues, 485 ; refuses
to persecute, 485; reproached
with poverty by Diocletian, 486;
his answer, 487; secured sub-
jects free worship, 485 ; stratagem
of, 486; becomes chief Augustus,
487; sole Augustus, 487; blessed
with numerous offspring, 487;
devotion to Supreme God, 487;
reward of devotion, 487; his
Christian manner of life, 487 ;
death of, 488; bequeaths em-
pire to his son, 488; burial, 488;
his happy end, 488; honors the
one God, 489; humanity and
piety of, 512.
Controversy between Alexander and
Arius, origin of, 516; continua-
tion of, 518.
Covetous man rebuked by C, 548.
Creation by Christ, 563 ; works of, 564.
Creator, 569; wisdom of, 565, etc.,
cf. words God and Word.
Crescentius= Chrestus, 437.
Crete, 602.
Crispus, son of Constantine and
JMinervina , 41 2 and note ; made
Cccsar, 418; defeats the Eranks,
418; death of, 419; tutored by
lactantim, 423; death of, dis-
cussion of 428, 429.
Cross, vision of, 416, 490 and note ;
the sign of immortality, 491 and
note ; sign of. See Sign of Cross
and Standard of Cross, lyi.
Cross-bearers, one slain, another pre-
served, 502.
Cumoean Sibyl, 575.
Cupid, 590, 601.
Cyriacus, St. (mythical), death of,
444.
Cyril of Jerzisalem (source), 447.
Cyrus the Great, 483.
Dalmatius, 584 and note; made
Ccesar, 420.
Dalmatius, letter of C. to, 439.
Daniel, 573, 574.
Daniel and the lions, figure of, 532.
Daphne, 574.
Death, worship of, 590.
Decennalia of C, 550.
Decius, 579.
Declamations of C, 547.
Delphic tripods, 534.
Demon worship in Cicilia, 535.
Design, 564; evidence of, 565.
Diceto, Ralph de (source), 455.
Diocletian, C. hostage with, 412 and
note ; palace struck by lightning,
412; abdicatio7i, 412,414; urges
appointment of C. as Cirsar,
414; "Fourth Edict'''' of perse-
cution, 415.
Diocletian, persecution by, 485, 486;
passes through Palestine, 487;
abdication of, 487, 579; insanity
and cruelty of, 512; terrified by
lightning, 579.
Diodorus Siculus, 602 and note.
Diomede, 602.
Dionysius, 551.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 602.
Discourses of C, 547.
Discourses by bishops at Jerusalem,
552.
Divination, practice by Licinius, 501.
Donatists, 417 and note, 418.
Donatist bishops, letter of C. to, 437.
Donation of C., 442, 443.
Dracilianus, 528.
Dragon in picture of C, 520.
Dreatn of C. concerning the founding
of Constantinople (mythical), 443.
Drepanum, refounded as Helenopolis,
419.
Ducas (source), 455.
Dumateni, 602.
Dusaris, 6oi.
6^0
INDEX TO LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, &C.
East, the religion came from, 516.
Easter, 555 ; celebration of, 520, 521 ;
declaration of Council of NicKa,
523; observance of, 524; observ-
ance by C, 545; remarks on,
561.
Eastern Nations, 483.
Edict of Licinius, 497.
Edict of toleration by Galerius, 49S.
Edict of toleration by Maximinus, 498,
499.
Egypt, Arian disturbance in, 515,
5 20; controversies in, 550; travels
of Pythagoras in, 566; laws of,
573-
Egyptian bishops at Nicrea, 521; at
Jerusalem, 551.
Ephramius (source), 454.
Epirus, bishops from, at Nicsea, 521.
Erechtheus, 602.
Erocus, king of the Allemanni, 413.
Erythraean Sibyl, the, 574, 575, 577.
Eternal life, 567, 570, 579, 580.
Ethiopians, 483, 542.
Eumalius Vicar ins, letter of C. to,
437-
Eumenius (source), 446.
Eiinapius (source), 448.
Euphronius, 538.
Eusebius, letter of C. to, 437, 439;
(source), 446; Life of C, edi-
tions, 466; translations, 466,
467; date, ^6"]; trustzuorthiness,
467; value, 469; oration in
praise of C, Prolegomeiia, 466,
467,469; translation, 481; pur-
pose of the work, 484; address
at NicKa, 522; called to Anti-
och, 536; letter to, concerning
Mambre, 533; letter of C. to
Antiochians concerning, 537;
letter of C. to, on his refusing
the bishopric of Antioch, 538;
letters of, respecting bishopric
of Antioch, 538; declamation in
honor of our Saviour's Sepul-
chre, 548; letter of C. to, con-
cerning copies of the Scriptures,
548, 549; discourse concerning
Easter, 548, 549; letter of C. to,
concerning Easter, 549; pro-
nounces discourse at Jerusalem,
552; at Constantinople, 552;
tricennial oration, before Con-
stantine, 552; oration in praise
of C, 581.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, letter of C.
against, 438.
Eustathius, 536.
Eutropius (source), 447.
Evagriits (source), 451.
Everlasting life. See Eternal life.
Evil, propensity to, 571.
Famine at Rome, 492.
l'"ate, 564.
Eausta marries C, 413; repeals plot
of Maxitnian, 413; death of,
419.
Faustus of Byzantium (source), /^().
Finding of the Cross, 444.
" Fourth Edict" of Persecution, 415.
Francs, 413.
Future life, 568; cf. eternal life.
Future retribution, 578, 579.
Galatian bishops at Nicrea, 521.
Galerius, C. hostage with, 412 and
note ; refuses to appoint C. Cct-
sar, 412; jealousy of C, 412;
rage at the escape of C, 412; re-
fuses C. the title of Augustus, 413;
becomes Augustus, 414; death,
414, 416; c/iaracter, 414; Gale-
rius real author of " Fourth
Edict" of Persecution, 415; is-
sues edict of toleration, 416; per-
secution by, 485; expedition
against Rome, 489 and note;
edict of toleration, 498.
Galerius (Maximian G.), death of,
498.
Ganymede, 590.
Gaza becomes Constantia, 550.
Gelasius of Cyzicus (source), 450.
Generation, 562, 563.
Generation of the Son, 569.
Generation of the Word, 562, etc.
Gentiles in office, forbidden to sacri-
fice, 511; abandon idol worship,
535-
Geoffrey of Monmouth (source), 455.
George of Arethusa, 53S and note.
Getse, 601.
Giants, 482 and note.
Gladiatorial combats forbidden, 546.
Glycas, Mich (source), 454.
God, known through his government
of the universe, 514; the teacher
of good, 514; the Father, 562,
566, 568; the Saviour, 562; the
Creator of all things, 562; the
Father of the Word, 562; be-
nevolent care of, 563; intellect-
ual essence of, 565; Providence
of, 565; the source of all things,
580; one, 584; knowledge of,
571, 606; cf. Christ, the Word,
etc.
Good, propensity to, 571.
Good Shepherd, figure of, 532.
Goths, 542, note; luar with, 419.
Gregoras, Nicephoras (source), 454.
Gregory of Tours (source), 45 1 .
Ilannibalianus, 420, 584 and note.
Helena, wife of Constantius, 411
a}td note; mother of C, 41 1;
lived at Drcpanum, 41 1 and
note ; divorced by Constantius,
412; visit to Jerusalem, 419;
character of,\2\; spuriotis letter
of C. to, 439; spurious letter to
C"., 439; (mythical) Constantine
and, ^i,\; (mythical) a British
princess, 441, 442; (mythical)
voyage of, 443; finds the cross,
444; makes will, 531; death,
531; builds churches at Bethle-
hem and Mount of Olives, 530;
pious conduct of, 531 ; generosity
of, 531; has titles of Augusta
and empress, 532; coins struck
in her name, 532.
Helenopolis, 555; founding of , 419.
Helicon, 534.
Heliopolis, 602; inhabitants of, letter
of C. to, 439; Temple of Venus
destroyed, 535; church built, 536.
Henry of Huntingdo7i (source), 455.
Hcraclea, battle near, 417.
Hercules, 590, 601.
Heretics, edict against, 539; deprived
of their meeting places, 539;
may return to Catholic Church,
540.
Hesychius Milesius (source), 450.
Hieronymus (source), 447.
Holy Sepulchre, 527, 548; discovery
of, 527, 528; church of, 526,
528, 594; description of, 528,
530.
Honors paid C. after death, 557.
Horus, 601.
Hosius, friend of C, 423.
Houses, restoration of, 509, 510.
Iberia, 577.
Idatius (source), 450.
Idol worship abandoned, 535.
Idolatrous worship forbidden, 545;
error of, 563.
Images, overthrow of, 534.
Indian Ocean, 553,
Indians, 483, 542, 553.
Ingentius, 437.
Inscription on statue of C, 493.
Inspiration of the Sibyl, 575.
Invention of the Cross. See Finding
of the Cross,
Isis, 601,
Italians, 566.
Jacobus of Sarug (source), 450.
Jerome. See Hieronymus.
Jerusalem, i7nprovemcnts in, 419;
dedication of church at, 420, 550,
551-
Jerusalem, Synod of, 552.
Jews, 806; may not have Christian
slaves, 547.
Joannes the Meletian, letter of C. to,
439-
Johannes Antiochenus (source), 452.
Jordan, the, 556, 569.
Jordanes (or Jornandes) (source),
451-
Jove, 577.
Judgment, the, 578, 579.
Julian the Apostate (source), 448.
Juno, 602.
Jupiter, 590, 602.
Jupiter Latiaris, 602.
Justice, 564.
Knowledge, desire of, 566.
Labarum, 490 and note, 491 and notes.
I.actantius (source), 446.
Lactantius, tutor to Crispus, 423.
Lamentation at death of C, 557.
Lands, restoration of, 509, 510.
Laodicea, 602.
Law respecting piety, 506, 507;
granting release for exile, etc.,
508; forbidding sacrifice, 511;
ordering building of churches,
INDEX TO LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, &C.
631
51 1; of wills, 546; respecting
childless persons, 546.
Laws, human, 564.
Lebanon, Mount, 534, 592.
Leo Diaconus (source), 453.
Leprosy (mythical) of C, 442.
Letter of C. to the churches, 524.
Leus, 602.
Lilxiiiiiis (source), 448.
Libya, Arian disturbance in, 515;
controversies in, 550.
Libyan bishops at Nicosa, 521; at
Jerusalem, 551.
Libyans, 602.
Liciniits appointed Augustus, 414;
cha?-acter, t^ii\; marriage to Con-
stantia, 417; edict of Milan, 417;
defeats Alaximitius,/^!"] ; falls out
'toith C, 417; defeated at Cibalis
and A/ari/ia,4iS; persecution of
Christians, 418; luar with C.
and defeat by, 418, 419; sur-
7-ender, 419; life spared, 419;
death, 419 ; conspiracy of, against
C, 496; contrasted with C, 496;
oppresses the East, 496 ; in-
trigues against the bishops, 496;
persecutes Christians, 496, 497,
498, 500; lawless conduct antl
covetousness of, 497; address
to soldiers, 501 ; sacrifices to
idols, 501, 504; flight of, 503;
advises soldiers not to attack the
Cross, 504; treachery of, 504;
death of, 504.
Licinius, son ofLicinius, made Ccesar,
418; death of, 419.
Linus, 577.
Logos used as personalty, 481, 7iote ;
cf. 482, note.
Lord's Day. See Sunday.
Lucina, 576.
Lydus, Joannes, (Laureniius)
(source), 451.
Macarius, Letter: of C. to, 438, 439 ;
letter of C. to, 528; letter to,
concerning Mambre, 533.
Macedonian bishops at Nicrea, 521;
at Jerusalem, 551.
Magic, practised by the persecuting
emperors, 489; by Maxentius,
492; by Licinius, 501, 503.
Malalas (source), 452.
Mambre, oak of, 533; church built
at, 533-
Marcionites, 539.
Mararianus, the notary, 551.
Maro. See Virgil.
Mars, 602.
Martyrs, in the palaces, 486; laws in
favor of, 505; property of, 509;
tombs of, 510; churches in honor
of, at Constantinople, 532; hon-
ored by C, 545 ; life and death
of, 571.
Material objects, existence of, 562.
Material world, 571.
Maxentius, proclaimed emperor by
Prcetorian guards, 413, 414;
persuades Maximian to resume
pttrple, 413; quarrels with i\f.,
413; character, 415; prepares
for war against C, 416; death,
416; tyranny and lust of, 491 ;
causes slaughter of Roman peo-
ple, 492; armies of, defeated
thrice, 492; employs magic arts,
492; death of, 492, 493; death
compared with that of Pharaoh,
493-
Maximian. abdication of, 412, 414;
resumes purple, 414; quarrels
with Maxentius, 413; alliance
with C, 413 ; plots against C,
413; defeated at Marseilles, Hfiy,
another plot, 413; death, 413,
414,416; character, i^\<^; perse-
cution by, 485; abdication of,
487; insanity and cruelty of, 512;
death of, 495.
Maximinus, with C. made " sons of
the emperors^'' 413, 414; ac-
knowledged emperor, 413, 414;
letter of C. to, 414; appointment
as Civsar, 414; assumes title of
Augustus, 414; character, 415;
persecution by, 415; war against
Licinius, defeat, flight, and death,
417, 5 78; persecution of, 498;
flight and death of, 498; edict
in favor of Christians, 498, 499.
Maximinus (for Maximianus), death
of, 495-
Melcatharus, 601.
Melchiades, letter of C. to, 437.
Memphis, 573.
Mercury, 601.
Mesopotamian bishops at Nicsea, 521 ;
at Jerusalem, 551.
Metageitnion, 601.
Milan, edict of, 417.
Miltiades — Melchiades.
Minerva, 601, 602.
Minerva Agraulis, 602.
Minervina, alliance of C, 412 and
note.
Miracles, 572.
Mnemosyne, 601.
Mcesians at Jerusalem, 551.
Mopsus, 601.
Moses, C. compared with, 4S5; wis-
dom of, 573.
Mount of Olives, erection of church
on» 530. 531. 594-
Muses, 534.
Musonius, 536.
Mystic rites, prohibition of, 546.
Natssus, 411 and note.
Narcissus, letter of C. to, 538.
Nazarius ( source), ^i^b; delivers ora-
tion, 418.
Nature, 565, 571; parent of all, 561.
Nebuchadnezzar, 573.
Nero, 484.
Niccea, Council of, 419, 481, note;
calling of, 521; bishops pres-
ent, 521; number of bishops,
522; deacons, etc., present, 522;
character of the bishops, 521 ;
held in the palace, 522; Con-
stantine present at, 522; ad-
dress of Eusebius, 522; address
of Constantine, 522, 523; decla-
ration of, 523; letter of C. to the
churches concerning, 524; fare-
well address of C. to, 525, 526.
Nicephorus Callistus (source), 454.
Nicetas Choniatas (source), 454.
Nicomedia, 579, etc.; churches built
in, 532.
Nicomedians, letter of C. to, 438.
Nile, worship of, forbidden, 546.
Novatians, 539.
Numl)er, 566, 587-589.
Numidian bishops, letter of C. *, 438.
Obodas, 601.
Omadian Bacchus, 602.
Optatian ( — Poiphyrius), (source),
446.
Oracle of Apollo, 512.
Oracle, Tythian, 513.
Oration of C. to the Saints, 54S;
translation of, 561.
Orosius, Faulus (source), 450.
Orphans, Care of C. for, 494.
Orpheus, 577, 603.
Osiris, 601
Painting, encaustic, 482 and note.
Palestinian bishops at Nicxa, 52I;
at Jerusalem, 551.
Pamphylian bishops at Niccea, 521.
Pan, 577.
Panegyrists (source), 446.
Pannonians at Jerusalem, 55 1.
Passion, day of, 561.
Paulians, 539.
Pentecost, feast of, 557.
Persecution by colleagues of Con-
stantius, 485; edict of, 512;
origin of, 512.
Persecutions, 415, 416, 507.
Persecutors, the, 507; end of, 507,
513. 543. 593. 594; contrasted
with C, 519.
Persia, Christians in, 542-544.
Persian bishop at Niccea, 521 ; at
Jerusalem, 551.
Persian War, 554, 555.
Petrus Patricius (source), 451.
Pharaoh, 573.
Pharaoh and Maxentius, 493.
Philosophers, the, 566; doctrines of,
567-
Philosophy, 546 and note, 547.
Philostorgius (source), 450.
Phiebus, 577.
Phoenician bishops at NicKa, 521;
at Jerusalem, 551.
Phrenix, the, 558.
IViotius (source), 452.
Phrygian bishops at Nicsea, 521.
Picture of C. with Cross and Dragon,
520,
Plato, 573; doctrines of, 566.
Plots of Diocletian and Galerius
against C, 488 and note.
Pluto, 590.
Poets, sayings of, 567.
Pontus, bishops from, at Nicsea, 521.
Porfirius = Optatian.
Porphyrius= Optatian.
Porphyrius, letter of C. to, 438.
Portraits of C, 544.
Praetorian Prsfect, 511 and note, 528.
632
INDEX TO LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, &c.
Praxagoras Atheniensis (source),
448.
Prayer, form of, given by C. to sol-
diers, 545.
Priapus, 601.
Probianus, letter of C. to, 437,
Procopius CcBsariensis (source), 45 1.
Prohibited books, 539.
Prophecies of Christ's coming, 573.
Prophecy of Sibyl, 575.
Proserpine, 590, 601.
Prosper Aquitaniis (source), 450.
Providence, 565; supplies all needs,
566; =r Christ, 569, 570, etc., etc.
Pseiiiio- Isidore (source), 452.
Pseudo-Leo (source), 453.
Pyriphlegethno, 567.
Pythagoras, 566, 573.
Pythian Apollo, 534.
Pythian Oracle, 513.
Pythius, 592.
Resurrection, 605.
Rhine, 489.
" Righteous men. The," 512.
Rome, famine at, 492.
Sabbath, 544.
Sacrifices, prohibition of, 546.
Sapor, 579 ; letter of C. to, 439, 542,
and note; desires to make alli-
ance with C, 542; letter of C.
to, 543. 544-
Sarmatians, defeated by C.,\\%; war
in behalf of, 419; received into
Roman Empire, 420 ; revolt of
slaves, 542; seek protection of
C, 541; attacked by Scythians,
542; received into Roman Em-
pire, 542; conquest of, 542.
Saturn, 601, 602.
Saviour, the, appears to Abraham,
533-
Scriptores Ilistoria; Augusta: (sotirce),
448.
Scriptures, copies of, 549 and notes.
Scythia, subdued by C, 483.
Scythians, 602; conquest of, 541;
Self-control, 564.
Sepulchre, Holy. See Holy Sepul-
chre.
Severus, becomes Ciesar, 41^; Augus-
tus, 414; death, 414, 416; char-
acter of, 414; expedition against
Rome, 489 and note.
Sibyl, the, 574; prophecy concerning
Christ, 575, 577.
Sign of the Cross. See Standard of
the Cross.
Sign of cross, 513, 520, 541, 593, 594;
engraved on soldiers' shields, 545.
Sigusium, capture of, 416.
Sminthian Apollo, 534.
Socrates (source), 450.
Socrates, 566.
Son, the revealer of light, 514.
Sons of C, 505, 582 ; heirs of Helena,
530, 531 ; appointed Caesars, 550;
empire divided between, 553; in-
struction of, 553, 554; Christians,
553; proclaimed Augustus by the
army, 557.
Soul, the jjreath of God, 567.
Sozomen (source), 449.
Spanish bishops at Nicoea, 521.
Sparta, 602.
Standard of the Cross, 490, 502; vic-
tory follows, 502; fifty men se-
lected to carry, 502. See Sign
of the Cross,
Stephen of Byzantium (source), 449.
Strategius, Count, 538. See Muso-
nizcs.
Sunday, law for observance of, 544,
545; pagan soldiers required to
pray on, 545.
S7vord of C. (mythical), 445.
Sylvester, Pope (spurious), treaty with
C. and Tiridates, 439; letter of
C. to (the Donation), 440; bap-
tism of C, 442; mythical appear-
ance to C. in a dream, 443.
Symplegades, 520 and note.
Syrian bishops at Nicsea, 521 ; at Je-
rusalem, 551.
Tabernacle of the Cross, 503.
Taxes, equalization of, 541 ; remission
of, 541.
Temple, destruction of idol, 534, 535,
etc,
Tenedos, 602.
Tent in the form of a church, 554, 555.
Thebaid, Arian disturbance in, 515;
bishops from at Jerusalem, 551.
Theban bishops at Niccea, 521.
Theoaoret (source), 450.
Theodorus, letter of C. to, 538.
Theodorus of Perinthus, 551, note.
Theodotus, letter of C. to, 438 ; letter
of C. to, 538.
Theognis, letter of C. against, 438.
Theogonius, 551, note.
Theophanes (source), 452.
Thracian bishops at NicKa, 521; at
Jerusalem, 551.
Thracians, 602.
Tiber, 492.
Tiberius, 575.
Tiphys, 577.
Tiridates, 445 ; (spurious) treaty with
C. and Sylvester, 439.
Toleration, edicts of, 417 and n'»te;
first edict, 416; second edict, 437.
See under Edict.
Tombs of martyrs, 510.
Torture practised against Christians,
513-
Tricennaha, 550, 552, 582.
Tripods, 534, 574.
Troy, 577,606.
Turin, battle of 416.
Tyrants, destruction of, 482, 488.
See Persecutors, e7id of.
Tyre, Synod of, 420, 550; letter of C.
concerning, 439; letter of C. to,
439; letter of C. to, 550, 551;
adjourns to Jerusalem, 551.
Ursacius, 551, note.
Usorus, 601.
Valens, 551, note.
Valerian, 543 and note, 579.
Valentinians, 539.
Venus, 601; worship of, 534, 590,
592; Temple of, 535.
Verona, capture of, \\(>.
Vice, 564.
Vicennalia of C, 419, 550, 552.
Victor, Sextus Aurelius ( source), 44S.
Virgil, 575, 576, 577.
Virgm, the, 575, 576.
Virginity, 546 and note.
Virgins, C. gives dowries to, 494.
Virtue, 564.
Virtue, life of, 571.
Vision of the Cross, 416, 490 and note,
Voragine (source), 455.
Western ocean, 483, 489, 553.
Widows, care of C. for, 494.
Will of God, 564.
Will of man, 571.
William of Malmesbury (source),
455-
Wills, law of, 546, 547.
Women's apartments, 508.
Word, the, 482, 561; Son of God,
562; is Son of God and with
God, 566; is God himself, the
High Priest, the Light, pervades
and rules all things, 5S3; only-
begotten Saviour of the universe,
pre-existent, 583; the source of
all things, 585 ; author of thought
and knowledge of God, produces
the likeness of God, 585; doc-
trine of, 595. (Creator, Pre-
server, only begotten, etc., etc.)
Zalmolxis, 601.
Zenobius of A'lag (source), 449.
Zonaras, Johannes (source), 453.
Zosimus (source), 449.
|5dnte^ b\> parher an^ Co., Crown E>ar^, OjforO.
Date Due
2;^o fU
7
r.W
' no
U. V V i-^
y
i
\
m
[
m
1
m.
Library Buroau Cat. No. 1137
w
ELLS BINDERY INC.
ALTHAM, MASS.
SEPT. 1960
WELLESLEY COLLEGE LIBRARY
3 5002 03044 4249
BR 60 . S42 1890 1
A Select library of Nicene
and poet-Nicene fathers of
I
TTTTTTTT:
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11